“I’m no feminist, but…”

Ya know what pisses me off? Women doing feminist things while saying they aren’t feminist. So often these days, “anti-feminist” women will use a platform they’ve earned to disavow any and all self-identification with feminism as if it is some man-hating branch of the KKK. A lot of times an anti-feminist will take a stand against what he or she perceives as misogyny – such as internet harassment – while at the same time disowning feminism. I doubt the anti-feminist even realizes she is calling out of rape culture – a purely feminist act!

I’m not sure when feminism became a bad word. Feminism has affected women’s lives in ways many of these anti-feminists don’t begin to appreciate. A woman can have a bank account and a credit card in her own name. Women are able to vote. Married women can own property. These are all things that would not be possible but for feminism.

Some of the anti-feminists claim that prejudices against women are a thing of the past. However, women have a long way to go to truly be equal to men in our society. Though laws to the effect have been struck from the law books, to this day a woman’s word in court is not as credible as a man’s. Women are stripped of their autonomy by patriarchal governments while making pregnancy decisions. Women in abusive relationships are in some states legally prohibited from leaving an abusive spouse. And, in theory, women have the same opportunities as their male counterparts. But in practice, girls are discouraged from breaking with gender stereotypes at an early age, and women are passed over for promotions in favor of men. So, at this point, feminism is very NECESSARY!

Therefore, to the anti-feminists I say, “get on board my feminist bang wagon!” We have cookies.

Advertisements

Enter The Fragile Ego – No Bubble!

Since when did we lose our ability to hold complex discussions without acting like children? No really. It’s near impossible to have a real conversation anymore. When did that happen? There has developed a barrage of rules about when certain topics are forbidden conversation:

  1. Don’t discuss sex or politics at dinner parties.
  2. Don’t discuss politics or religion at the bar.
  3. Don’t discuss diet at the dinner table.
  4. Never discuss personal matters at work.
  5. No sex or race or politics or religion on Facebook, please. (Cat pictures only!)

With all these rules, when can we ever really, seriously talk about anything at all?

It seems one cannot bring up thought provoking topics anymore without someone else becoming offended or throwing around accusations. Dare you state the obvious, and you are just being mean. Dare to infuse racial-sociological context, and you are being a troll. “You’re talking publicly about your disbelief in my god – that’s RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION!” “How dare you analyze my personal experiences in a political context you contentious bitch!” We’ve become so afraid of rocking the boat that even calling oneself a feminist has suddenly become controversial.

It’s hard to pin down from whence this fragile egotism originated. Is this a product of the white, fluffy cloud concept of political correctness? Are we so motivated by etiquette that we feel the need to censor face-to-face, written, scholarly and even web speech? Or is this inane treading on the shallow end of conversation pool manifest of a collective need not to pop our own comfortable bubbles of correctness?

The dumbing down rampant in our education system (along with a host of other problems) could be partially to blame. When education funding is razed, the first education programs to disappear with that funding tend to be the courses that facilitate independent scholarly reflection: literature, art, sociology or current events. When people do not get the well rounded education needed to autonomously think outside the box, how can we expect people to approach complex social or political issues in a constructive way?

Where do we land at the end of this tryst with superficiality? The result is a bedazzled populace more concerned with who Miley Cyrus is twerking on than whether extending unemployment benefits is beneficial to our economy. Such is a populace that also avoids discussing the influence of racism on our social-economic institutions, or how the exaltation of female virginity degrades and hurts women.

A culture of avoidance facilitates ignorance. Ignorance breeds isolation. Isolation breeds extremism. And goodness knows we’ve already too much of that. It’s high time to take off the rose glasses, pop the comfy bubble, and commence with the discourse of our lives.

The Prochoice Case Against Free Abortion

Access to abortion care is a vital aspect of comprehensive health care for women of reproductive age. Lack of access to abortion services leads to later term abortions that come with an increase in the risk of health complications like unmanageable pain or bleeding. Lack of access also opens the door for disreputable individuals to offer clandestine abortion services, which often lead to dangerous and deadly side effects.

Socioeconomic factors affecting abortion access are exacerbated by state-enacted, targeted regulation of abortion providers, or TRAP laws. TRAP laws are laws passed that apply only to abortion providers, which are often passed under the guise of protecting women’s health, while serving only to reduce the number of freestanding abortion clinics in a state, thus reducing access.

However, the primary and most immediate barrier to abortion care for many women is purely economic: the cost of an abortion. The cost for a surgical abortion in the first trimester ranges from $300 – $950. The cost for a medical abortion very early in pregnancy using an abortifacient like mifepristone costs $300 – $800. The price goes up week-per-week as a pregnancy progresses.

When I was a student working my way through college, taking the minimum student loans, and scraping by each month, raising an extra $600 in just a couple of weeks while still paying the rent and feeding myself would have been almost impossible! I’d have had to pick up extra shifts beyond the 30 hours a week I was already working. I think it would have taken me 5 or 6 weeks to earn the money. If I was diligent and found out I was pregnant at 6 weeks*, by the time I’d raised the money, made an appointment, and traversed the needlessly obligatory waiting period, the pregnancy could have progressed into the second trimester – and the price would have progressed right with it. And so I paint the picture of the unforgiving situation of chasing the cost of an abortion.

Because of this impact that cost chasing has on poor women, some prochoice activists advocate “abortion – free, on demand”. Other reproductive health care professionals advocate for increases and expansion of Medicaid coverage to pay for medically necessary as well as elective abortions for poorer Americans. But I, as a Prochoice activist, cannot fully support these position. To explain, I’ll break this motto up into two parts.

Abortion on demand!

When was the last time you walked into a doctor’s office who you’d never met, shook his or her hand and said “I want you to perform procedure X – which requires sedation, maybe a narcotic prescription, and possibly follow up – on me today.” I highly doubt you’d get what you want without an in-depth consultation at the least. Abortion in the first trimester is a minor procedure. But a patient history, pregnancy testing, and consultation is important for patient wellbeing for even minor procedures. Many states, including mine, have enacted a compulsory waiting period between the first appointment with an abortion care professional and the abortion being performed. However, a 24-hour waiting period may not be necessary (and is certainly not effective) for ensuring patient wellbeing.

Waiting periods are just another barrier. Decisions about patient care should be left to the doctor and the patient, without unwarranted intervention by the government. Compulsory waiting periods without careful consideration of and compensation for the burden such waiting periods would have on women with no childcare arrangements,  lacking private transportation or needing to travel great distances to access an abortion pose an undue burden.

Another aspect of abortions “on demand” is allowing abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. Not many people support this position. The United States Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that a state’s vested interest in the wellbeing of a fetus cannot override the interests of a pregnant woman until such time the fetus could be viable outside the womb – variably 22 – 24 weeks into pregnancy. Most states criminalize third trimester abortions, with exception for when the life of the mother is in danger. (One marked exception is Maryland, which has no such laws on the books and is home to one of the very few late-term abortion providers in the country.)

Though the antichoice movement would have one believe otherwise, the majority of prochoice activists support restrictions on third trimester abortions with exceptions for serious or life-threatening health circumstances and when lethal fetal anomalies are confirmed.

Abortion – for free?

Health care costs money. Many people disagree with the notion of health care as a civil right. Personally, I reject the philosophy that some lives are worth more than others if they have enough money. In my view, some fundamental level of health care is indeed a civil right. As health care costs money, a threshold exists where the obligation to protect the common wellbeing ends and a personal agenda of wellbeing begins.

There will be an estimated 56.9 million Americans enrolled in Medicaid in 2013**. In most states, Medicaid covers an abortion if it is a medically necessary health care procedure. But the majority abortions are arguably not medically necessary. The question in the case of non-medically indicated health care procedures becomes – who is obligated to fund your life? Is the government supposed to take care of you?

Under the Constitution, our government provides vital services for the indigent and those that cannot care for themselves. This does not mean the government (the people) should pay for laser eye surgery because a Medicaid recipient is burdened by wearing glasses. As another analogy, this also does not mean the government is obligated to pay for tubal ligation or vasectomy. Likewise, an elective, non-medically indicated medical procedure does not fall under the financial obligation of our government (the people) to protect the welfare and national security of our country.

The government does (the people do) , however, pay or free contraception access (and in some cases, tubal ligation sterilization procedures) for Medicaid recipients and other qualified persons. This is because our government (the people) takes advice from the medical industry and the experience of our and other countries, which shows that in the long term it is in our best interest to prevent disease and unintended pregnancy rather than fight the symptoms.

Contraception access and comprehensive sex education prevent unplanned pregnancies. Offering elective abortion for free is not a preventative measure, and does nothing to prevent future unplanned pregnancies. A switch from a curative health care system to a preventative health care system is the single most important step the people (the government) can take toward protecting the common welfare of our country.

Offering abortion for free could have additional indirect consequences. If there is no consequence (cost) for needing an abortion, then there is no incentive for preventing unplanned pregnancy in the first place. Sure, there is always the desire to prevent the more uncomfortable symptoms of pregnancy. But if abortion were free, there would be no issue with pregnancy symptoms, because as soon as a woman found out she was unwelcomely pregnant, she could just jaunt right over, have an abortion within a day or two, and rid herself of the symptoms. Studies have shown money to be an effective incentive for eliciting many good behaviors – good grades and weight management for example. Why should avoiding pregnancy be any different?

Bad behavior with no consequences is no bad behavior at all. Personally, I worked quite well to make sure I never ended up pregnant unexpectedly. Neglecting contraceptive measures, getting pregnant, and then footing the people with your unnecessary medical bill is bad behavior. We should all be tasked with assuming a measure of personal responsibility when it comes to our health care. And when we choose to practice safe (or not) sex, we have accepted not only the protection, but also the risk that our chosen contraception method will fail. This is a calculated risk, one for which we should all be prepared to pay.

*More commonly, women discover they are pregnant at between 6 and 12 weeks.

**U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget in Brief, Strengthening Health and Opportunity for All Americans,” http://www.hhs.gov/budget/fy2013/budget-brief-fy2013.pdf

Marissa Mayer’s Disregard for Feminism is Feminist

Marissa Mayer has sure got a lot of haters. It seems every feminist enclave across the internet has had to put in its 2 cents regarding Mayer’s reluctance to call herself a feminist. In a recent interview for the PBS Documentary, “Makers,” Mayer equated being feminist with negativity and having a “chip on the shoulder.” Ouch.

Many feminists and mommy bloggers criticized Mayer’s choice to work throughout her maternity leave, which lasted exactly the two weeks she said it would. Some took the opportunity to reproach her for not fully realizing how important and gushy motherhood is supposed to be. Mommyish straight up called Mayer out for her example saying, “people will use this as ammunition to say that maternity leave isn’t necessary.”

On top of this, the internet is now rife with criticism of Mayer’s move to abolish full-time work-at-home arrangements at Yahoo!. One Feministing contributor calls Mayer’s policies “anti-feminist” adding, “I’ll say it again: I think Mayer’s rejection of feminism is whack and her remote work policy is harmful.” Another article I came across even seeks to criticize Mayer’s get-your-butt-into-the-office policy for contributing to future air toxicity. Seriously?

There is an expectation in feminist circles that female leadership, in turn, foster female development. I counter that expectations of special treatment from women who have succeeded in business and in leadership positions is counter to feminist goals. For all the good feminism has created, there is an equal amount of detriment that can come of the expectation that women who attain great power should act preferentially in the better interests of women entering the workforce.

What Marissa Mayer has done with Yahoo!’s new work arrangement is two-fold. It serves to weed out inflexible and under-productive employees, as well as inject efficiency and freshness into an ailing business. Yahoo! has been on the after-burner of innovation; and playing catch-up for years. For all the complaining coming from journalists and bloggers (who likely do not work in STEM fields to begin with), there is plenty of circumstantial evidence of the effectiveness of face-to-face collaboration as compared to remote interactions.

In essence, Mayer’s  elimination of remote work arrangements is an action feminists should embrace. Mayer didn’t come in and go, “Oh. I am the boss now, so I’d best ensure my policies are family and woman friendly, or I might offend someone.” No. She said, “I am the boss now, and I am going to turn this company around, entitlements be damned!” She pulled a punch; and didn’t sweat the fallout. Mayer has a reputation for making decisions based on statistical evidence. And in top Mayer-form, she made a tough business decision, proving she has just as much business chutzpah as any other Fortune 500 CEO on the beat.

If that’s not feminist, I don’t know what is.

The Superbowl, Beyonce and Sexism

During the Super Bowl every year, feminist bloggers and tweeps take to the intertubes for the opportunity to analyze – not the game itself, mind you, but – the commercials that fill the gaps between squashed third down conversion attempts. These women and men, for the most part, are not looking to enjoy the commercials for the art of ad making. No way. The real point is to ferret out and expose the sexism embedded in every single ad.

Tide-loving Baltimore Ravens fan = sexist assumption of women’s role in the home.

Audi kiss the prom queen kid = he didn’t get consent sexual assault guy.

Two Broke Girls pole dancing = ARE YOU FRIGGIN’ KIDDING ME???!!!

Go Daddy beautiful (dumb) model and nerdy (smart) man = WHOA! That one was PRETTY SEXIST. And pretty freaking GROSS, by the way.

Super Bowl commercials – commercials in general – tend to scrape the bottom of the barrel in the feminist thought department. (Except for this pretty awesome Best Buy commercial featuring the always rib-tickling Amy Poehler.) What I didn’t expect was for one of these femi-tweeps to disrespect one of the richest, most successful women in the entertainment industry today.

Beyonce1
Really, dude?

Wow. Not only does this woman’s tweet completely belittle and disregard the image that Beyonce has nurtured through her hard work and dedication to excellence, the follow up purports that somehow football is different from other sports because the MALE players try to dominate each other. THAT right there – that’s sexism.

This woman conveniently ignores two factors. The first is that ALL contact sport is based on violence (at some level) and physical domination. I played soccer for 13 years. (And softball for 7 years before that.) Personally, there was not a game I played in where I did not attempt to intimidate, out-muscle, out-foul, out-jostle, and generally demoralize my opponents. The desire to physically dominate ones opponents in sport is not a gendered trait – it is a human trait! The desire to win is innate to sport in general. And life without sport is a prison camp.

The second inconvenient truth? Describing Beyonce’s performance as nothing more than “spreading their legs” is insulting and just plain sexist. Even if this tweep were implying that the Super Bowl big-whigs would only allow a female act on stage that included scantily clad women doing suggestive dance moves, she would be highly mistaken. While I didn’t see The Boss take off his clothes (though I would not have complained). Nor did the Rolling Stones or Tom Petty. And even Madonna – though fully clad – had half-naked humans of male and female gender on her stage – fun for everyone!

The real fact is, Beyonce is a feminist role model who has used her body to create a BRAND that has made her MILLIONS of dollars, landed her a Super Bowl halftime show, and allowed her to sing for the President of the United States on several occasions!!! The fact that she looks absolutely spectacular in a lace-trained leotard is secondary to the fact that – at this point – she answers to herself, she makes her own rules, and she didn’t need a man to make her fortune for her.

Except her papa.

Because we all need a man for something.

Don’t Call Pregnancy from Rape a Gift from God

Calling an unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape a something “God intended to happen” is just not right. The reasons are nearly innumerable. But here are a few.

Calling an unwanted pregnancy from rape a gift implies the rape was a gift as well. You can try to say, “Well, I abhor violence. I abhor rape. My god wouldn’t want that.” But even labeling the direct consequences of the violence perpetrated against a woman as what “God intended to happen” grants a divine dispensation to the rapist. Would you also claim, “This rapist wasn’t too bad since he allowed God to bless her?” I think not (unless you are crazy). Separating the pregnancy from the rape that started it is impossible for many women. So until your god starts impregnating women against their will at random, you should probably refrain from equating unwelcome pregnancy by sexual assault with heavenly benefaction.

Calling an unwanted pregnancy from rape a “gift from God,” and using that to defend a position that bans abortion even in cases of rape and incest, turns women into slaves. Forcing rape victims to carry a rapist’s baby (and in many cases, share custody with him) is the ultimate form of reproductive coercion by the state. A lot of people have never hear the term reproductive coercion. Forcing a woman to bear children against her will facilitates her ensnarement in a subservient position to her abuser – or in this case, the rapist. It is government-sanctioned abuse. This isn’t 80s Romania – this is the Unites States of America! Allowing the state to assume authority over a citizen’s body – be that citizen male, female, pregnant or not – is contrary to The Constitution of the United States and contrary to what Americans expect of their government.

Finally, forcing women to bear children against their will because it is your “God’s will” is forcing your religious beliefs on that woman. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t like the morning after pill, don’t take it. If you think women should just deal with the risks and unalterable physical changes that pregnancy brings with it, then by all means, bear down.

But don’t for one second think that your religious beliefs should be the standard borne by all Americans. Don’t for a moment think that everyone is obligated to serve your god by laying down their own right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because an reprobate didn’t understand what “NO” meant. And don’t you ever rest in your cozy little bed believing women will just “lay down and take it.”

Because you bet your ass we won’t.

Why is Preventative Medicine Only Wrong When Abortion is the Subject?

A great article by Caperton on Feministe raises the oft controversial subject (among abortion rights activists, that is) about whether discussing abortion as a medical procedure that should be rare is appropriate. Caperton takes the position that, as is the case for angioplasty, preventative medicine should make the demand for abortion lower. Caperton argues, and I agree:

“So yes, we should want abortion to be rare–not because there’s anything wrong with it as a procedure, or because it’s horrific or universally traumatizing, but because we’d generally rather not have to pay money and undergo minimally invasive medical procedures if we can avoid them. Um, hi.”

Yeah, um, hello. Medical intervention should be a rarer occurrence. Americans have come to rely too much on getting a pill or a simple operation to cure all the ills they did themselves over the course of their lives. Preventable, medical intervention costs the U.S. billions of dollars every year. Effective preventative medicine saves money and lightens burden on our health care system.

The fact that abortion is the topic of this particular preventative medicine debate doesn’t change the math. Tiptoeing around abortion and the desire to reduce the number of abortions needed due to fear of negative publicity has more of a negative impact that addressing abortion as you would address any other preventable medical procedure. The simple fact is, the majority of unwanted pregnancy is preventable. If we change the way our society views a woman’s right to control her reproductive life and her general health, we benefit her, her children and our society economically and socially.