Pro Choice

“Feminism is about more than women’s rights, it’s about an interlocking network of all oppressions!”

Not by my definition.

As most here know, I voted the Republican ticket for the first time last November. Not to bore anyone with a repeat of that discussion, but the main reasons were that as a fiscally moderate-conservative, social liberal, Obama was far too fiscally liberal for my taste, and not socially liberal enough. I wondered if he would be better, in practical terms, for women than the Republican ticket. His and his campaign’s conduct during the primaries were not comforting in that regard. And although the Repubs have also strayed far from fiscal conservative (or even moderate) principles, I knew at least that they’d be more to my taste in that area than Obama’s administration. Add to that his inexperience and it was a relatively easy call.

Now, as Violet peerlessly captures here, the House Democrats have passed healthcare reform for men:

“First, they made sure that women’s medical needs would not be considered part of basic healthcare. Then, today, they added in an extra special amendment to make extra-double-plus sure that abortion wouldn’t be covered. Even by private plans! That’s right: any insurance plan that participates in any way in the new exchange, or receives any federal subsidies, or is paid for with any tax credits, will not be allowed to offer abortion coverage. Gosh, it’s almost like making abortion illegal.”

And it’s hard to disagree with that.

First, it is likely that most or all private insurance plans will participate eventually in some way in the new exchange.

Planned Parenthood says:

“The Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all. In fact, this amendment would create a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and middle incomes, the very people this bill is intended to assist. The majority of private health insurance plans currently offer abortion coverage, and the Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in the elimination of private abortion coverage in the ‘exchange,’ the new insurance market created under health care reform, as well as in the public option, if one is created.”

Only five states restrict insurance coverage of abortion in private insurance plans, with some exceptions for women’s health.

Abortions run approximately $400-$1000 in the first trimester. And much more thereafter.

Therefore, the preclusion on coverage that now exists is tantamount to a denial of abortion for poor women.

Let’s think about the worst case situation under a Republican presidency. Roe v Wade could get reversed. Note: 11 of the last 14 Justices have been appointed by Republicans, and yet Roe v. Wade still stands as the law of the land, so we cannot know for sure that this would happen. But, it remains a possible worst case scenario.


What would happen?

“All of a sudden, abortion would be illegal in roughly 25 states (there is some debate about which states have actually have abortion laws on the books as many states have contradictory laws because Roe v Wade basically declares that all states have to at least allow abortions to adults). These states cover about 1/3 of the country’s population. So if Roe got overturned … all of a sudden … about a 1/3 of the nation’s population will not have ready access to abortion. Many women wanting an abortion may have to drive many hours to get to a state that will allow one.”

This would be a horrible situation.

However, under the House plan, a much larger portion of women will not have ready access to abortion. And their lack of access has a costlier barrier. Arguably, it would be harder to scare up $1000 than to get a ride, particularly given the likelihood that public-interest women's groups would develop funded carpools in the event that something happened to Roe. I know I'd contribute significantly to such a nonprofit, and I am sure I am not alone in this.

That’s why women and feminism should not remain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Democrats and liberalism respectively.

I don’t advocate becoming wholly owned by Republicans or conservatism either. I think in this instance they would be better for women’s rights simply because smaller government has less ability to affect women’s choices, not because they also wouldn’t sell women out for the “greater good.” This particular health plan, rather than simply straight-out subsidizing health care for those Americans who cannot get it through their employers and cannot otherwise afford it, seeks to expand government (male-dominated) power, which then takes advantage of those it sees as reliable, uncomplaining loyalists: women. In cases in which Republicans seek control they shouldn’t have – gay marriage, Supreme Court justices who would get rid of Roe – they too roll over women.

So while individual women may be conservative or liberal in all respects, I don’t think it’s healthy to assume that women generally can be grouped so easily, rather than being individuals who make individual determinations on individual issues. The second we group in under the male-designed rubrics, and subordinate our interests to the larger cause, guess who winds up being told to walk five steps behind?

Gender Justice?

Dalia Mogahed, President Barack Obama's adviser on Muslim affairs, while on a TV discussion program, said the Western view of Sharia was "oversimplified" and the majority of women around the world associate it with "gender justice".

Ms. Mogahed didn’t challenge earlier statements by other speakers on the program attacking secular law and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism," as well as statements that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government". She asserted that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West.

She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media."

Sharia includes death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft. Ms. Mogahed acknowldged that people think its laws “seem unequal to women," but claims that’s a misperception.

Some aspects of Sharia:

• “Homosexual activity is illicit under Sharia”

• “a daughter's inheritance is half that of her brothers”

• “Sharia law has sometimes resulted in women living in fear or disadvantage.”

• Sharia law has been used to require compensation to be paid to a husband where a child bride requests a divorce after rape and abuse.

• Beating one's wife “lightly” is allowed.

Dalia Mogahed has described her role as follows: “Muslim adviser to the President, my focus is on studies of the Muslims and their views and way of thinking in the world, and then briefed the president on the issues of Muslims and what they want”.

Which raises a couple of questions.

First. Does she, in fact, in equating Sharia and gender justice, speak for what Muslim women “want”?

Second. In the midst of congratulations for President Obama on his Nobel Prize, will the various feminist-themed websites pause to discuss this issue?

Identity

Everyone has probably read a lot, by now, about track star Caster Semenya.

I believe gender identity is in the hands of the individual. If one identifies as female, one is female. Gender isn’t just about anatomy, nor do I think there is anything magic about the genitalia one is born with as a hard and fast determinant of true gender.

I believe strongly, however, that how one personally identifies and should expect to be identified by others and how one is categorized for purposes of sports competition are distinct.

I agree with Renee Richards:

"If she has this body that's fueled or developed under the influence of testosterone, she has a different body than the runner she's running against… They're going to have to put together some kind of a guideline. Some kind of a numbering system to say, 'This is a person who should be allowed to compete as a woman ... and this is a person who should unfortunately not be allowed to compete as a woman."

As one of the commenters at SportsFilter says:

“It's also worth remembering that the 800m world record for women is the longest standing of the standard IAAF competition events, dating back to 1983. …There's a reason why certain times haven't come close to being challenged in 20 years -- you can also point to the 1500/3000/10,000 records, all set by Chinese athletes in one week, at the 1993 Chinese National Games, during a time of extreme suspicion at their emergence from nowhere. (Six other athletes coached by Ma Junren were kicked out at Sydney in 2000.)

That's not to say that there [isn’t] a long history of abject sexism from the IAAF towards what constituted a woman competitor, and I've said here before that it's been handled atrociously, through leaks and anonymous tip-offs. But … when everyone who follows athletics looks back at the bad old days of Eastern Bloc doping, that 800m record for women sticks out like a sore thumb, and anyone coming close to that time, with those associations, is going to come under suspicion.”

I understand the concerns, as Monica Roberts notes, that the attention to Semenya implicates “the continued centuries old attack on the images of African descended women and [their] femininity.” And I agree: on the part of some, it surely does. Monica’s Feministe piece details the treatment of the Williams sisters and other athletes of color. I think it’s disgusting that the 2009 Australian Open website omitted Venus and Serena from their list of the 10 Most Beautiful Women. Huh?

But the disgust at the bigoted treatment of beautiful black female athletes – and black women generally, such as Michelle Obama – and at the way events unfolded here, should be distinguished from the policy decision.

I believe, as Pat Butcher suggests, that Semenya is a political pawn. I think it likely that her coach, involved in a doping scandal in East Germany, as well as others involved in her pre-international career, had some suspicions which should have resulted in this matter being settled with respect and sensitivity towards Semenya’s privacy.

The various news reports suggest that at various points during her life and professional career, Semenya’s gender was questioned. Anyone looking at pictures of her can tell that she’s in a different category from Babe Didrickson, the Williams sisters, Billie Jean King, FloJo, or other star athletes with great abs and arms. To spare her this discomfort, discreet testing should have been done, and her options understood well before any personal information could be thrust into the public domain. As Monica Roberts states: “if the IAAF had questions, they should have quietly done those tests. Somebody leaked the info in Berlin that got this hot mess started.”


But yes, to ensure that xx women continue to have a shot at elite sports competition, I think having a line in the sand is necessary. We separate sports by gender and not, say, various advantages Michael Phelps has, for two reasons. One: there is a huge segment of the population who is affected by not doing so, due to the gender gap in many sports. Two, gender (rather than size or shape or foot size) is a protected class.

The naïveté involved in commingling the (1) sexism involved in questioning the gender of someone who identifies as female, or the racism involved in questioning the femininity of a woman who isn’t white, with (2) the guidelines for sports competition, which shows up here, here here and here is part of why I wonder whether I should still identify as “liberal.”

Of course, I haven’t been a fiscal liberal for a decade. But my stances on rights involving gender, race, sexual orientation, choice, and other related issues are decidedly liberal. Technically, I’m probably a neoliberal or small-l left-leaning libertarian. Where does someone like that fit? Not many places. I cringe at a lot that I read at National Review Online. I also cringe at a lot that I read at Kos and most mainstream liberal feminist sites. I’ve commented infrequently at Pajamas Media, and they think I’m way too liberal. I’ve commented frequently at the aforementioned liberal feminist sites and they think I’m way too conservative.

Maybe this is why the Caster Semenya story is so fascinating. Ideological fit is, of course, incomparable with the trauma involved in gender fit. And of course, nobody who isn’t Caster Semenya can know what level of anxiety she has dealt with regarding gender fit prior to the recent situation. One can only imagine that wearing clothes, playing games, and having an appearance that isn’t conforming is confusing and marginalizing whether one identifies securely as female or otherwise. Because people are cruel, and they like to put other people in boxes and then render judgments.

The struggle with where one fits ideologically isn’t remotely in that ballpark. But it gives one perspective – that ones personal issues with identity are really not that big a deal, in the scheme of things. Not even close to what this South African teenage track star is dealing with. I hope she is surrounded by people who are out for what is in her best interest – not that of the IAAF, not her country or even her community – but hers.

But, that doesn’t change my views on the athletics issue. So, maybe I’m not a liberal – certainly not the right kind. I’ll have to come up with something that’s a better fit.

Or not.

We Have The Tradition

Ruth Bader Ginsburg says:

“There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.”

Ginsburg clarified that she meant by this that women who had money to travel and pay for abortions would continue to be able to have them even post-Roe. But given the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women and the travel costs for those in states that didn’t legalize abortion pre-Roe (and therefore might outlaw it post-Roe), those women would be precluded by poverty.

Additionally: “more than 86 percent of employment-based insurance plans routinely covered abortions. So ostensibly, if no federal dollars were allowed to fund abortion, many women could end up losing benefits they currently have. Medicaid funds are already prohibited from funding abortions.”

The right to abortion, therefore, not just a legal but a financial issue. Roe is only one part of the right, and establishes the right for those who can afford abortions to pay for them in any state. That leaves “ability to pay.” If we didn’t have Roe but had abortions covered by health care (care to wager whether they would be if cisgender men got pregnant?), then the cost of travel would be in place of the cost of the abortion for those women in states which precluded abortion. It’s hard to know which situation would be worse.

Faith points out regarding the statement by President Obama that he would “’rather not wade into’ the issue of whether or not health care reform should include federal funding for abortions”:

“it would seem Obama is NOT IN SUPPORT OF ABORTIONS for any woman who can't pay for one. So low-income workers, immigrants, youth and the usual marginalized population are going to be (*&$ out of luck unless some private funding will cover these costs.”

The argument, apparently, is that it would be offensive to anti-choicers to have their tax dollars go towards abortion.

Is that the real issue, though?

Somehow, when the medication directly affects men, coverage isn’t controversial. When it’s women, it’s a different story. Viagra is mostly covered, whereas most women on birth control pay for it themselves: “In short, Viagra is a costly, potentially risky drug which allows impotent men more sexual pleasure in their personal lives, while oral contraception offers a generally safe, cost-effective, socially beneficial solution to America’s unintended pregnancy rate (which, at 60%, doubles that of other developed nations).”

If the concern were to reduce abortions, wouldn’t birth control be covered? If cost were the issue, would Viagra be? If human life were the key issue, wouldn’t we have the less risky contraceptives covered in place of Viagra?

There are other examples of items that are currently covered, and which men partake in more than women do, that can cause harm to others. Does the fear of others’ moral objections affect prescription of these medications?

What about coverage for medical care more commonly used by men? For example, blood pressure medication is often used to treat erectile dysfunction. Dizziness and trouble with driving a car is a common side effect. Since treating ED is a choice, like having an abortion often is, should women refuse to have our taxes go towards coverage of blood pressure meds for ED?

What about OxyContin? Older white men are the most common users, eg for back pain. Dizziness is a major side effect and men who drive daily have caused serious injuries to others while on the medication. Do we refuse to cover use of oxycontin by older white men?

Also, male age is linked to miscarriage risk. With dads over 35, the risk can be as much as 50% higher, and it increases with ages over that. So, should pro lifers refuse to cover medical care for pregnant couples where the dad is over, say, 40 (including second marriages of wealthy campaign donors who want shiny new families)? Possibly out of respect for anti-choicers’ tax dollars, men over forty should be given vasectomies, to prevent future miscarriages (which I believe are more costly, especially if there are more than one)?

These scenarios seem pretty out there, no? The idea of restricting coverage for men medicating their back injuries, fixing their erectile dysfunction, sowing their seed in greener and younger pastures… can we imagine that happening?

So, how can restricting coverage of abortion be defensible? Hm, what’s different there?

Also. Is the concern really about preventing harm?

The Guttmacher Policy Review, a leading abortion rights research organization, finds "that about one third of women who would have had an abortion if support were available carried their pregnancies to term when the abortion fund was unavailable."

What about the other two thirds? They, presumably, either (1) didn’t have abortions but weren’t able to carry their pregnancies to term, possibly because of harm to the baby or the mother; (2) had abortions by safe medical means or (3) had abortions by unsafe means. There doesn’t seem to be concern on the part of those who would preclude coverage for mother in category (3). Do we know how many of them are harmed by these procedures? Why isn’t this part of the calculus?

Well, maybe because the calculus was never about harm to people. It is about controlling women.

Let’s look at that headline again:

“Obama: Abortion Funding Not Main Focus of Health Reform”

Does that sound familiar?

Feminism shouldn’t focus on just women.

Wait, you’re next. Well, after Joe, Sam and Fred. Then you. Maybe.

Don’t be so aggressive. Be more like Dick.

Other stuff is more important. Be patient.

What did Obama say? “I'm pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care”.

Pro choice but.

But.

But, tradition.

What about Change? Why is “tradition” an excuse?

When the “tradition” doesn’t favor women, maybe?

Teeth

We’re all familiar here, I take it, with white male-run organizations which, in voicing a strong commitment to a diverse leadership, place women or POC in positions of leadership, but more as figureheads? Taking out the teeth, as it were?

Check out this bio.

Now, Wilson’s a great firm. I’ve placed people there. I’ve also placed many more people out of there. Some of them were women and POC. I know that, while the firm has placed women and POC in some figurehead positions, the consensus among attorneys I’ve spoken to is that they are not given, or allowed to exercise, real power.

Unsurprisingly, however, on the CEO’s bio, it claims that the firm “was ranked No. 1 in the Minority Law Journal's 2009 Diversity Scorecard and named as one of the 2008 Best Law Firms for Women by Working Mother Media and Flex-Time Lawyers.” Moving numbers around and putting real muscle behind leadership positions, of course, are not equivalent.

I was reminded of all this in reading these two articles.

Ken Blackwell says (h/t Booker Rising):

"The way Tina Brown describes the Clintons’ unenviable fate, they don’t sound like Mr. Obama’s political pals—they sound like his hostages. … What I can’t understand is why she ever took it. … Hillary could have championed any issue she wanted from her secure Senate perch. Nationalized health care? She was perfectly positioned to lead the charge. Defending Judge Sonia Sotomayor? Hillary was a senator from jurist’s home state—and the judge is a feminist to boot.

But, instead, Hillary seems to have become President Obama’s feminist to boot. Tina Brown charges that Hillary has been “a Saudi wife,” and an abused one at that. Hillary didn’t get her man, Richard Holbrooke, as her number two at the State Department.

She even had to suffer the indignity of not having her Harvard friend, Joe Nye, named as U.S. Ambassador to Japan. …Hillary had to swallow the White House’s man for Tokyo. And, this one had to hurt:

Obama tapped John V. Roos, stiff-arming the internationally respected Prof. Nye.

According to OpenSecrets blog, Mr. Roos and his wife were once major Clinton donors but last round Roos “bundled” at least $500,000 for the Obama campaign. Ouch! Talk about adding diplomatic insult to Hillary’s recent elbow injury.”

There were two attorneys at Wilson who were big supporters of the Dem primary contenders. One of them supported Hillary Clinton. He asked me for a check, and said he’d sure like to see his numbers beat those of the guy who was putting donations together for Obama. Both because he felt Clinton was clearly superior, and also because of – well, two male lawyers, big Silicon Valley testosterone-driven law firm, you figure it out. I agreed with the former and gave him a check.

The other lawyer was John Roos.

Take another look at Roos’ bio. Click on the link to expand it. Do you see any international governmental or diplomatic experience? Look harder. Take out the microscope. I’ll be here, waiting.

Back already? Right. Roos is the CEO of a firm which, until only recently, was only in California.

Nye, on the other hand, was voted the sixth most influential international relations scholar in the past twenty years, and *the* most influential on American foreign policy. He is a co-founder of various international relations theories. He pioneered the concepts of soft power and smart power that became popular with the Obama administration. He chaired the National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

I’ll just quote some more:

“He is widely recognized as one of the foremost liberal thinkers on foreign policy, and is seen by some as the counter to renowned Harvard conservative Samuel P. Huntington…. He is on the Advisory board of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy as well as on the International Editorial Board of the Cambridge Review of International Affairs, the editorial board of Foreign Policy, the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Guiding Coalition of the Project on National Security Reform, and the Board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has been awarded the Woodrow Wilson Prize by Princeton University and the Humphrey Prize by the American Political Science Association. In 2005 he was awarded the Honorary Patronage of the University Philosophical Society of Trinity College Dublin and in 2007 he was awarded an honorary degree by King's College London. President Obama reportedly passed over Nye for the post of Ambassador to Japan - against the urging of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - in favor of a campaign fundraiser.”

Roos is a campaign fundraiser. His firm puts women in positions of fake power. People who put together guidebooks for newbie lawyers are fooled. But the position doesn’t match the decisionmaking power.

Obama, apparently, does this as well. And in bypassing the Secretary of State’s opinion – a woman’s opinion – about an international ambassadorship, in bypassing an internationally known scholar for a fundraiser who’d kicked him some cash, he was following a very familiar pattern.

Placing women in positions of power, complete with nice-sounding titles, while stripping them of real decision-making responsibility, isn’t enough. If women aren’t empowered, none of the glossy “Hope” posters or “Best for Women” guides have meaning.

At least, not to those of us who can read between the lines.

With Friends Like These

I’ve just come from reading a bunch of female-run blogs talking about Palin’s resignation.

It’s depressing. With the occasional exception I saw and likely a number I didn’t, there is a different tone to many of these accounts than in discussions of the disgraced Mark Sanford or Rod Blagoyevich. Despite the fact that Palin’s decision, as far as we know, was voluntary and not brought about by wrongdoing on her part.

I have numerous disagreements on the issues with Palin. I have no issues with female bloggers taking strong adverse stances with Palin on substantive issues. I do not think feminism requires we hold off on that, any more than we’d do with a male politician.

However, the kind of visceral glee and speculation that attended her announcement, from women (and no, I’m not going to link, it’s easy to find and my goal here isn’t pointing fingers), is depressing on many levels.

Other human rights activist groups, such as anti-racists and the gay rights movement, have been more successful in pressing their political issues than women have, particularly recently, considering the percentage of women in the population vs other groups.

Oh but, some may pipe in helpfully, women don’t agree on goals!

Not quite. A high percentage of women agree on goals such as equal pay, right to be free of harassment and discrimination, increased female representation in management and government, anti-trafficking of women, ending the feminization of poverty.

And yet, it is difficult for women to coalesce around shared goals. For a wide array of reasons.

Seeing the vitriol come out from women, towards women, reminds me of this, and sounds an alarm bell for the movement. The unnecessary policing many feminists do of each other often appears distinct from tension within other groups.

On a personal level, I have seen alliances or, less frequently, friendships with other feminists dry up over issues that – I have to admit – do not seem to separate male friends who disagree on such issues. The sundering of these relationships doesn’t help me or other women on issues we disagree on – and it certainly doesn’t help us jointly progress with the many issues on which we strongly agree.

I wish I knew of a way forward on this. I fear it will continue to be an obstacle that holds us back.

NOW

Suzie at Echidne of the Snakes writes a great post about ageism in the feminist movement. It’s concise and hard-hitting.

Suzie talks about the NOW conference to elect a new president:

“Delegates will be choosing between Latifa Lyles, a 33-year-old African-American who has been one of [President Kim] Gandy's three vice presidents, and Terry O'Neill, 56, a white activist who taught law at Tulane University, who was NOW's vice president for membership from 2001-05, and who most recently has been chief of staff for a county council member in Maryland's Montgomery County.”

Suzie then notes that Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing.com, says young Feminists would prefer Lyles, as NOW stands for white middle class feminism and O’Neill, 56, would be same old-same old. Valenti stated:

"When you think of NOW, you think of white middle-class feminism — 70s feminism…A lot of younger women are tired of seeing the same kind of leadership over and over. ...They're getting excited about smaller, local feminist organizations, more youth-led, doing more cutting-edge work."

Suzie correctly points out that only stated difference is age. Lyles, as part of the current NOW leadership and a current VP, didn’t institute any of the changes Valenti's now discussing, as Patricia Ireland, former NOW president, notes. Suzie nails it:

“I want young women involved in feminism, but I’m uncomfortable with the idea that it is natural for young women to prefer other young women, and that youth = cutting edge. It would be equally insulting for a woman of my age to suggest that older women are better and that older women would be more excited to elect one of their own.”

Intersectionality is allegedly one of the hallmarks of modern feminism. However, as Black Amazon points out, age is an intersectional characteristic: "older woman" is in fact AN INTERSECTIONAL IDENTITY.” And as Daisy lays out, ageism finds yet another home in feminist bloglandia.


As feminists should be aware, the difficulties women face as we age are unique to women. Both the right and the left have used gendered ageist commentary. And we don’t need to look to politics for such analyses. In our lives, we’ve seen men on the right and on the left treat women over “a certain age” as obsolete.

Well, move over guys, plenty of room on the bench for the young women who are hopping aboard to join you.

Forget about the fact that O’Neill was the contender who was NOT part of NOW’s current administration.. Forget about the fact that O’Neill has in her slate a young (younger than Lyles, if the third-wavers are counting) WOC feminist who’s been Policy Manager for the DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, an activist for access to education for poor women, and a lesbian rights activist. And forget about women of color who have played leadership roles in NOW (including as president and founder and some who are still active) who had the gall to be born before 1975.

Apparently for other intersections to count, they have to come wrapped in the right package – as in, a late model year.

I thought very highly of both choices for NOW president, and would have supported either. It’s too bad certain young feminists are “tired” of something that’s not “youth-led.”

Because Terry O’Neill won. Congratulations, Terry.