In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Tag: International

90 African Women Die Every Day From Unsafe Abortions

The policies of medical apartheid (a term I picked up from this article, and am a big fan of) are killing women. 90 a day in Africa.

“By continuing to adhere to archaic colonial laws, by failing to implement international agreements, and by failing to act on growing evidence, we have allowed abortion to become the killing field for women in Africa,” said Ghanaian gynaecologist Fred Sai. “This is the worst case of medical apartheid that exists. There is no law forbidding men to decide on their own body.”

Sai denounced “double standards” in which wealthy people could afford safer abortions even if they were illegal, while the poor had to resort to unsafe procedures.

Unsafe abortion includes inserting sharp objects into the uterus, flushing the vagina with caustic liquids, throwing oneself from high places or repeated blows to the abdomen. These methods are responsible for 90 percent of the abortions carried out in Africa, where only Cape Verde, South Africa and Tunisia allow unrestricted abortion.

This is shameful. And U.S. policies like the Global Gag Rule are contributing to it. I wrote a column about this before the election last year, and ended it with:

When you go to cast your vote Nov. 2, remember women like Hillary Fyfe, whose abstinence-based HIV prevention group Family Life Movement in Zambia lost $30,000 in U.S. funding due to Bush’s policies.

Fyfe has seen the results of the gag rule firsthand, as women induce abortions by “swallowing pounded glass, pushing sharp needles or other unsafe instruments through their uterus, pushing poisonous substances up their vaginas like cuttings from trees or roots, drinking bleach mixed with glass, or overdosing on malaria pills.

“All of the above end up with the death of both mother and child,” Fyfe writes. “Or the child dies and the mother is crippled for life. These cases are a daily occurrence.”

While we aren’t responsible for the restrictive laws in many African countries, it remains true that America has failed African women, and women in general. Our international policies are exacerbating an already troubled situation, all in the name of “pro-life” politics. And the situation now is dire — and not at all life-affirming.

An estimated 4.2 million African women resort to these dangerous practices each year, and 30,000 die as a result, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Although only 10 percent of the global total of abortions happen in Africa, the continent accounts for almost half of the world’s deaths from unsafe abortions, with one in 12 women dying, according to WHO. For every death, 20 to 30 women suffer permanent damage to their uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, intestines or bladder.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, about 530,000 women die in pregnancy or childbirth every year, nearly half of them – 247,000 – in sub-Saharan Africa.

via Feministing.

Interesting Idea

From an article in the New York Times yesterday, a creative solution to a problem: how to provide clothing for Somali Muslim girls in a refugee camp in Kenya so that they have freedom of movement while playing volleyball but don’t violate religious norms?

Read More…Read More…

This Is Not At All Comforting

For the first time since, oh, a few years after the War of 1812, the US is putting weapons on Coast Guard vessels patrolling the Great Lakes.

For the first time since 1817, U.S. Coast Guard vessels on the Great Lakes are being outfitted with weapons – machine-guns capable of firing 600 bullets a minute.

Until now, coast guard officers have been armed with handguns and rifles, but the vessels themselves haven’t been equipped with weapons.

The War of 1812 saw violent battles on Lake Erie and Lake Huron between U.S. troops and British forces, which were largely composed of militias from Britain’s colonies in what is now Canada. After the war, the United States and Britain – and later Canada – agreed to demilitarize the Great Lakes waters.

And surprise, surprise — fear of terraists is being used to justify abrogating a treaty that’s been in place nearly 200 years:

The Rush-Bagot Treaty of 1817 allowed each country to station four vessels, each equipped with an 18-pound cannon, to safeguard the Great Lakes.

The antiquated treaty has recently been reinterpreted because of U.S. concerns about customs violations, human smuggling and international terrorism.

So we’re going to shoot up Canadians and leave our port facilities largely uninspected. Gotcha.

At least the Canadians are reserving the right to shoot back:

A Canadian Foreign Affairs official said Ottawa has agreed to read the treaty in such a way that coast guard vessels may be mounted with guns by considering them weapons of law enforcement rather than war.

Canada reserves the right to arm its own vessels as well, the official told CBC News.

Under the reinterpretation, which both sides say honours the spirit of the original treaty, vessels may be outfitted with machine-guns of sizes up to .50-calibre. That would be big enough to bring down a helicopter and shoot through a light-armoured vehicle

But I thought fighting the terraists was a job for the military!

Jesus Christ. Yet another sign of the madness of King George.

Posted in Uncategorized

Burqa Ban

From Steve Gilliard, apparently the Dutch are considering banning the burqa, the niqab and other Muslim veils that cover the face.

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – If the Netherlands becomes the first European country to ban the burqa and other Muslim face veils this month, Hope says she’ll resort to wearing a surgical mask to dress in accordance with her religious beliefs.

“I’ll wear one of those things they wore during the SARS epidemic if I have to,” said the Dutch-born Muslim, one of about 50 women in the Netherlands who wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes.

“I’m very practical,” the 22-year-old added.

Last December, parliament voted to forbid women from wearing the burqa or any Muslim face coverings in public, justifying the move in part as a security measure.

The cabinet is awaiting the results of a study into the legality of such a ban under European human rights laws, before making its final decision. The results are expected in the second half of this month.

50 women. 50 women wear face coverings in the entire country, and there’s an effort to ban their clothing.

I’m with Steve on this one: this is the kind of thing that would never fly here, because of the First Amendment. There are anti-mask laws on the books, but those are really targeted at the Klan and bank robbers. Steve is very vocal about the racism in Europe, something that’s not acknowledged by the Europeans — particularly those who see themselves as tolerant but haven’t dealt with their colonial past. He is also an avid fan of Manchester United, and a lot of the examples he gives of overt racism come from football, such as fans shouting racial slurs at black and brown players. You know, the kind of thing that would cause a riot here.

Another layer of the story, as pointed out by some of Steve’s commenters who live in the Netherlands, is that the politician who’s driving this effort, Geert Wilders, described by Reuters as a “populist,” is actually of the right-wing, anti-immigrant Le Pen kind of populist. He also, apparently, hasn’t had the world’s best record on women’s issues, so many Dutch are a bit suspicious when he says stuff like this:

“This is an enormous victory for traditional Dutch decency,” said Geert Wilders, the populist member of parliament who first proposed the burqa ban, after hearing parliament had backed it.

“The burqa is hostile to women, and medieval. For a woman to walk around on the streets completely covered is an insult to everyone who believes in equal rights.”

Wilders also tried to justify the ban by appealing to fear:

Wilders, who lives under heavy guard after death threats for his criticism of radical Islam, argues a ban on the burqa will support moderate Muslims and boost their wider integration, in addition to removing a security risk.

“It is not acceptable for people to completely cover themselves on the street. It threatens public order and security. Plus it is a terrifying sight and only increases the cleft between natives and foreigners,” he wrote in his Web-log.

I sure as hell don’t like the burqa, but I don’t see the point in a ban targeted at women who wear them. Muslims in the Netherlands already feel marginalized; this is only going to give them further grounds for feeling persecuted, and will do even more to increase the cleft between natives and foreigners (as, undoubtedly, will continuing to refer to them as “foreigners” when they’ve lived in the Netherlands for generations). Whereas, human nature being what it is, if you don’t make a big deal of it, and in the meantime fully integrate Muslims into society, the burqas will probably go away on their own.

The much-debated “headscarf ban” in France was designed to address the plight of young Muslim girls who were being forced to take the veil by making any display of any religious article forbidden in the public schools. It applies across the board, for everything from crucifixes to yarmulkes to hijab, so it provides cover for girls who don’t want to wear the veil (but, unfortunately, puts girls who do in a bad position and hasn’t worked as effectively as had been hoped).

But more importantly, the French ban applied only to public schools, not to society at large. The Dutch ban is neither universal nor limited. It’s one thing to pull your daughter out of the public schools when she can wear a veil on her own time, but the effect of banning the burqa and the niqab is likely to be the further oppression of these women. If, as the reasoning goes, the burqa is a symbol of their oppression, what makes Wilders think that the people oppressing them — the men in their lives — will allow them to go out in public with their faces uncovered? More likely, they’ll be kept in purdah instead, not allowed to leave the house.

It’s unquestionably a little freaky to see a woman in a free society wearing a burqa — my subway stop is next to an elementary school, and I quite often see a woman in a burqa dropping her kids off in the morning. I guess that she’s a recent immigrant, as there are many in my neighborhood, but she’s the only one in her group wearing a burqa (the other women I see her with wear salwar kameez, with the occasional hijab). But as distasteful as the whole thing is, I wouldn’t dream of advocating a ban on her wearing a burqa.

Why? Well, one thing Steve missed in his analysis is that this proposed ban is just another way to oppress these women, by turning them into criminals for doing what they probably have little choice to do, given their situation. Several of his commenters, who support the ban, brought up footbinding and female genital mutilation as examples of religious or cultural practices that we do not tolerate even under the idea of multiculturalism. But here’s the thing: with footbinding and FGM, it’s not the girls who are so mutilated who are held accountable for the crime, it’s the people who do the mutilating. The Dutch ban puts the onus on the women themselves to change their oppressive manner of dress and leaves those who presumably are forcing them to wear the burqa unpunished.

Blog Against Sexism Day

Every day is Blog Against Sexism Day here at Feministe, but it’s nonetheless valuable to give it special focus on International Women’s Day. First, check out the Tenth Carnival of the Feminists at Indian Writing (a great blog — be sure to check it out beyond the Carnival). Submit entries for the next carnival to Angry for a Reason.

It should be fairly obvious to everyone here why we blog against sexism. It’s because women are still considered sub-human baby-producing vessels, instead of individuals with full rights of self-determination. Because women’s bodies are still seen and used as property. Because reductive gender constructions hurt women and men, and shame people out of supporting equal rights. Because we still have to answer these questions. Because some people still fail to recognize that there’s work to be done here and abroad. Because woman = sex, and our bodies are fetishized and labelled deviant, dangerous, and sinful. Because sexism, heterosexism, animus/discrimination/violence towards women and animus/discrimination/violence towards the LGBT community are inherently intertwined. Because the rights of the woman still come last.

Despite all these things that we have to continue working for, I’m hopeful. Most of the women and many of the men I know aren’t afraid to define themselves as feminists. There’s a huge feminist presence in the blogosphere, and for me this blog has become a great feminist community. Women’s rights are gaining ground world-wide, and women are working within their own countries and cultures to empower themselves and their daughters and their sisters. Feminism is present in journalism, politics, and advertising. Almost all the women I know grew up playing sports; almost all the women I know feel entitled to an education, to a job that they enjoy, to their own bodies, and to a satisfying sexual life. I’m living my ideal life and doing what I damn well please, and I have infinitely more choices and opportunities in my life because of the feminists who came before me. I hope that the women who come after me will have infinitely more choices and opportunities than I did, and I see communities of women working right now to make that happen.

Feminism isn’t finished, but it has been a success. It has made things better, and, provided that we continue to do the groundwork, it will continue to make things better. There are days when I read the newspaper and I turn on the TV and it’s disheartening. But then I look around and I see the people in my life, you all in the blogosphere, and everyone else working hard and moving forward, and I’m optiministic.

I’ll end by borrowing from Amanda and leave you with two of my favorite ultimate-stereotype feminist quotes (and even though they’re stereotypical, I love them and find them particularly poignant):

“I have had something to prove
As long as I know something
That needs improvement
And you know that everytime I move
I make a woman’s movement.”
-Ani Difranco

Feminists have a vision of women, even women, as individual human beings; and this vision annihilates the system of gender polarity in which men are superior and powerful. This is not a bourgeois notion of individuality; it is not a self-indulgent notion of individuality; it is the recognition that every human being lives a separate life in a separate body and dies alone. In proposing “the individuality of each human soul,” feminists propose that women are not their sex; nor their sex plus some other little thing—a liberal additive of personality, for instance; but that each life—including each woman’s life—must be a person’s own, not predetermined before her birth by totalitarian ideas about her nature and her function, not subject to guardianship by some more powerful class, not determined in the aggregate but worked out by herself, for herself. Frankly, no one much knows what feminists mean; the idea of women not defined by sex and reproduction is anathema or baffling. It is the simplest revolutionary idea ever conceived, and the most despised.
-Andrea Dworkin

Happy International Women’s Day. Now go blog against sexism.

White Boy Seeks to Own Brown Girl

Well this is interesting.

How do I find a Hindu bride?

I will be going to India within the nearest future, and I would like to find a Hindu woman for marriage / children / life together / etc.

She needs to be intelligent, speak some English, beautiful, young. I don’t require a dowry and class is a non-issue.

How does a white 37 year old white man make this happen? Personal anecdotes, advice, warnings, all appreciated.

I’m not sure where to even begin with this. This isn’t technically bride purchasing, but it’s just as racist, imperialist and sexist. This man has fetishized Indian/Hindu culture, and I would imagine is under the impression that because he’s white, from a more developed nation (I’m assuming American or European) and male that he has a right to a beautiful brown woman to make babies for him, because he’s the more powerful one.

The very idea that someone would travel abroad based on assumptions about another culture to “get a bride” — the same way that I might go to Montana to get car, because their taxes are lower — is sick. Some of the commenters on the site argue that it’s ok to have a racial preference/fetish, because people have all kinds of preferences and fetishes — some prefer blue eyes, some like high cheekbones, some only date within their religion, etc. The difference, of course, is between liking a particular characteristic and exoticizing an entire group of people in a way that positions them without individual characteristics and casts them as less human than the person doing the fetishizing. It’s not as simple as “this guy is just creepy.” It’s that his views are an extreme version of the life view which sees white men as “normal” and everything else as deviant or other. Women are defined by not being men; people of color are defined by not being white. And in defining us in relation to the white male standard, our individuality, our value and are very humanness are inherently compromised.

Some people have asked, “What’s wrong with him being attracted to Indian women?” But I think it’s fairly clear that this isn’t about him being attracted to Indian women; it’s about him constructing an idea of an Indian-woman-as-item-to-be-consumed and fetishizing owning that object. And this point of view obviously isn’t unique to “I like women of tktk race” comments. It’s there any time the humanity of an entire group of people is diminished in order to focus on some perceived characteristic of that group. It’s there when white American guys say that they prefer Asian women because they’re more docile, or Latina women because they’re more traditional. It’s there when women fetishize black men as exotic or joke about how they’re universally well-endowed. What’s consistent is that it’s often (though not always) a more powerful group fetishizing and dehumanizing a less powerful one.

Thoughts?

Thanks to Sachin for the link.

What a Comprehensive Women’s Health Policy Looks Like

We focus a lot of our efforts — rightfully — on access to basic healthcare, including things like birth control, sexual health education and HIV/AIDS prevention. But it’s essential to keep in mind that a good international women’s health policy also covers the very basics, like access to clean water, in tandem with these other things. And, as an Ethiopian study suggests, clean water may do more to benefit women’s reproductive health than we had imagined.

Just one major problem: In benefiting women’s health, it increases their fertility. Which is great, since an overall increase in a population’s fertility is generally a sign of good health. But since these women don’t have adequate access to family planning tools, it means they have far more children than they did before. Which, again, would be great if they were choosing to have these children, and if having them was indicative of better economic, social and health conditions. But it isn’t. And while the women are healthier, their children are starving — which is arguably better than dying of disease and infection from the tainted water, but not by much.

This boost in birth rate takes a toll on children’s health. The investigators found that kids were more likely to be malnourished, based on their height and weight, in villages with taps than in those without.

This could be simply because families are sharing their scarce food between more children. Or perhaps low birth-weight babies, who previously would not have survived the trauma of birth, are now surviving but not thriving.

Of course, in the aggregate, this is, at the very least, better than the previous situation. But it’s worth noting here that a good health policy for developing nations works on a variety of levels: It includes clean water, food, access to family planning services, adequate pre-natal and well-baby care, health education, immunizations and disease prevention, and on and on. It can’t be addressed on a single level. Imagine how much better this situation would be if these women had clean water and were able to control their own fertility so that they had as many children as they desired, not as many as fate offered? What would their lives look like if they could afford to feed all their kids, and got to watch them grow up into adulthood instead of watching them die of disease and infection before they had clean water, and then watching others waste away after the clean water taps were introduced? A good international policy would address this issue comprehensively instead of offering simplistic moralisms and short-term solutions. The Bush administration’s agenda of starving family planning clinics and disallowing these women access to basic reproductive health tools doesn’t help women, children or families.

Thanks to TangoMan for the link.

International Abortion News

And for once, it’s actually good. First, Australia ends their ridiculous ban on medical abortion*, and takes the control of the procedure away from their health minister. The responses from politicians are particularly interesting:

The issue split Prime Minister John Howard and his heir-apparent, Peter Costello.

Mr Howard voiced his opposition to the bill, saying it was the duty of parliament to take responsibility for making difficult decisions for the country.

But Mr Costello voted to remove the power of the health minister, after telling parliament how he had to decide whether to abort an unborn child as his wife lay ill and unconscious in hospital, 18 years ago.

“The choice I made was to continue both the treatment and the pregnancy. By the grace of God, both survived,” he said.

“I have no doubt that the law should not have prevented such a choice – that the law should allow a choice, whether physical or mental health of the woman is at risk,” Mr Costello said.

“It’s the duty of parliament to take responsibility for making difficult decisions for the country” vs. “It’s the duty of individual women to make these difficult decisions for themselves.” I know which side I land on. Good on Australia.

Next, the UK considers allowing women to have medical abortions* at home. Allowing women to terminate their pregnancies at home offers them more privacy, and another choice. Women in some parts of the United States, and women across many European nations, already have access to this choice. UK women deserve it, too.

Thanks to Anne for the links.

*Terminology note: Medical abortion refers to the very early-term procedure (9 weeks or earlier) in which a pregnancy is terminated by taking a combination dose of methotrexol, mifepristone and misoprostol. It’s commonly known as “RU-486” or “The Abortion Pill.” The other –and more common — option is surgical abortion, of which there are various kinds.

Bush Cuts Family Planning Funding

Slashing the U.S. international family planning budget by almost $100 million dollars — another woman-killing measure pushed by our “pro-life” administration.

The cuts are stirring strong opposition from nonprofit groups and Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees responsible for foreign aid. They say the reductions would mean more unintended pregnancies for the world’s poorest women, and more dangerous abortions in countries where the procedure is outlawed.

“It’s ironic that an administration outwardly committed to reducing the incidence of abortion would take away valuable tools for preventing unwanted pregnancies,” said Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York.

Yup. And what’s the administration’s reaction?

Ed Fox, an assistant administrator at the United States Agency for International Development, said the budget cuts for family planning should be viewed in the broader context of large proposed increases for presidential initiatives to combat AIDS and malaria that will greatly benefit women.

That’s a good move. Position women’s rights activists against HIV/AIDS and malaria activists, and let them battle it out over the money. Except that the HIV/AIDS and malaria initiatives aren’t anywhere close to being put into place — they’re simply “proposed increases.”

I propose we give women, men and children abroad one day of the Pentagon’s budget — or one day of the cost of the Iraq war — and give millions of people access to reproductive healthcare, sexual health education, HIV/AIDS medications, and preventative tools like condoms. But I won’t hold my breath.

Filed under “crime” because it is one.