Feed on
Posts
Comments

Recently, POPLINE, which is run by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and is both the “world’s largest reproductive health database,”and funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), began to block searches using the word “abortion.” Such overt interference of politics and anti-intellectualism into research projects, databases, information dissemination is especially disturbing–particularly in an academic setting at a renowned research university.

Wired first broke the story of how this database, which indexes biomedical literature dealing with population data and is used by researchers, advocates, and clinicians who work in the areas of reproductive health, family planning and pregnancy, was blocking the search term “abortion”–a term some might see as vital for those researching family planning, pregnancy, and, oh right, reproductive health.

From the Wired story:
“Under a Reagan-era policy revived by President Bush in 2001, USAID denies funding to non-governmental organizations that perform abortions, or that “actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.’”

Which leads us into the whole issue of the economic implications of the “right” to abortion…

But for this particular instance, in a huzzah! moment, Michael J. Klag, Dean, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, expressed his outrage at POPLINE’s decision and reversed it, issuing this statement:

I was informed this morning that the word “abortion” was blocked as a search term in the POPLINE family planning database administered by the Bloomberg School’s Center for Communication Programs. POPLINE provides evidence-based information on reproductive health and family planning and is the world’s largest database on these issues.

USAID, which funds POPLINE, found two items in the database related to abortion that did not fit POPLINE criteria. The agency then made an inquiry to POPLINE administrators. Following this inquiry, the POPLINE administrators at the Center for Communication Programs made the decision to restrict abortion as a search term.

I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have directed that the POPLINE administrators restore “abortion” as a search term immediately. I will also launch an inquiry to determine why this change occurred.

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and not its restriction.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Klag, MD, MPH
Dean, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

This shift in policy was a direct result of the Wired story (bad publicity!) and an influx of emails into the POPLINE message center (outraged citizens!). So huzzah! once more for getting your voice heard!

Activism in Writing

I nearly titled this post: “A Slight Digression,” but then I realized: that’s silly, it really isn’t one. This blog, after all, is an exercise in activism through writing. I was asked to write an opinion piece for the Columbia Daily Spectator recently on the state of print activism as part of a three-part series on student activism at Columbia. As the co-founder of Columbia’s first progressive mag, AdHoc, back in 2005, the opinion editor thought I might have some insight. AdHoc was an interesting and extremely rewarding experiment for me. At base, it made me face the questions: How do you get your voice out into the larger world? Can socially-conscious journalism be effective? How do you balance the ideals and realities of working to enact change within a university setting? What is the relationship between written activism and other forms of activism?

Of course I never really got around to answering these questions at the time; I was too busy trying to build and keep a magazine afloat. I am happy to say that we had a number of well-researched and important articles published that year. And hot damn, there was a huge learning curve for me in figuring out how to run a magazine. The future of AdHoc is unclear–I am two years out of Columbia and, given that AdHoc’s website has been down for the past six months, I can’t say that the magazine is flourishing. But, now that I have the grace of time and leisure, here are finally some answers to those big picture questions that I never really got around to answering at the time.

The following appears in the Monday April 7, 2008 edition of the Columbia Spectator, and can be found on their website here. I have copy and pasted the article from their website below. I can’t say I’m thrilled with the headline (this isn’t a ra-ra article on the healthy state of print activism) but the article contains my philosophy on its purpose, thoughts on why print activism as opposed to online activism is still relevant, and suggestions for what student print activism should ideally address and how it should work within the greater student activism project.

Print Activism: Alive and Well

PUBLISHED APRIL 7, 2008

Illustration by Jona Mici

In the 2005 opening credo of AdHoc Magazine, Alex Jung (CC ’07) and I hearkened back to 1968. It was a clichéd reference and, in retrospect, not very applicable. Our project, to found Columbia’s first progressive magazine, was far removed—in content but especially in form—from the activism of that era. The protesters of ’68 initiated large-scale demonstrations and took over classroom buildings. In contrast, we sought to act as “a necessary forum to analyze what is at stake” in campus issues. Hardly the type of thing to drive the barricades up.

The idea for this magazine sprung initially from our dissatisfaction with the Columbia Daily Spectator’s 2004-5 coverage of Manhattanville. It was not the Spectator’s fault—they followed these debates closely, but their format as a daily newspaper was unsuited to heavily researched analyses or detailed opinions. We were progressives, and we felt that these issues had obvious progressive viewpoints that were being lost or ignored because students were under or misinformed. We envisioned that each issue would act as an ad hoc committee on a singular theme (Manhattanville, gender politics, privilege in education), explore its significance at Columbia, and situate Columbia’s experience within a greater social context. Fundamentally, we were driven by the simple, even simplistic, belief that if students had all the “facts,” they would act on them.

Given the costs and one-foot-in-the-grave status of print media, our scheme to start a magazine may have been harebrained. The web provides a wider potential audience and immediate response time—protests incite and create mass consensus. Nonetheless, I then believed, and still do believe, that there is a vital place for print activism on the college campus—that this is in fact critical to the success of the wider student activism project.

Ideally, print activism should serve as the foundation upon which demonstrations, marches, and sit-ins are based. The purpose of an activist student magazine such as AdHoc is three-fold. First, it seeks to highlight the issues that aren’t being discussed or discussed enough. Second, it provides a forum for voices that are rarely heard and textual documentation of oft-stifled perspectives. Third, it provides data, statistics, quotes, micro-histories, and grand narratives that can help outline position points for the demonstrators, the op-ed writers, the marchers, and the shouters.

The University campus serves as a representative system of larger societal issues. Everyday, Columbia faces its own demons of gender inequality (the lack of women represented in the science faculties), race politics (a noose on an African-American faculty member’s door), prescription medicine access (what responsibility does Columbia have for drugs their scientists create?), class inequalities (the economic fate of faculty house employees during renovations), and urban politics (hello, Manhattanville!). Truly successful print activism convinces activist and non-activist students alike that the great social battles are taking place right in front of them, reminding them that the University is hardly a “bubble”—that the University and its students’ actions affect the world at large, and they must act accordingly.

Faced with the barriers of administrative morass, students may feel as if they don’t have much power. But what they lack in position, they are able to make up for in numbers and the uninhibited raucousness of the student voice. Activist publications can play an essential role in forming that voice by providing critical commentary on University issues.

While students may get their national politics online, their knowledge of the (non-gossip, non-blog) college world comes mostly in print. Newspapers are picked up on the way to class, magazines read while waiting for the elevator, journals perused during study breaks. The college campus is much like a rural town—a place where everyone wants to know everything that’s going on in their micro-world—and thus can sustain print media in a way that is becoming more difficult at the national level.

In looking at other campus progressive magazines, the major mistake I have seen time and again is an attempt to be The Nation or the New Republic or even n+1 on a college campus. I once read an article in one such magazine that delved into a Sartrean analysis of global capitalism in the post-Y2K age. The article took no inspiration from the unique experience of the author’s university or fellow students and felt like a term paper. Needless to say, I only made it to the second page. Campus print activism must seek to be transformative through the relevancy and uniqueness of its reporting. There is no point in mimicking what major pundits or thinkers have already said.

Despite its importance, print activism faces severe challenges. Printing one issue can cost, at a minimum, over $2,500. Such magazines often receive little University support. Staff at these magazines must become savvy at finding grants and selling advertisements (seeking ads from faculty departments is always worthwhile). All campus papers face the discontinuity of ever-changing editorial boards, but for small, niche magazines, these changes can be especially disruptive. Despite these challenges, there are signs that print activism is alive and well. Campus Progress at the Center for American Progress provides support for over 50 student progressive magazines across the U.S. Young People For provides fellowships for college activists, which may often go toward funding for progressive publications. Each year, the Independent Press Association’s Campus Independent Journalism Awards acknowledges socially engaged journalism. Student print activism is by no means dead, and it shouldn’t be. Our shouting needs substance, our causes a wider consensus among the student body.

The author is a member of the Columbia College class of 2006. She is the co-founder of AdHoc.

What You Can Do, Redux

I plan to repost the below every couple of weeks to remind New Yorkers to CONTACT your LEGISLATORS to show your support for RHPPA.

There is one easy way to demonstrate your support for the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act (RHPPA) and that is by writing to your assembly member and state senator.

As mentioned below, the anti-choice movement has been bombarding our assembly members with false information and protestations, and our representatives have yet to hear a clear call that not just NOW-NYC, not just NARAL Pro-Choice, and not just Planned Parenthood, but a majority of New York men and women believe they have a vested interest in protecting their reproductive freedom and women’s health. I will get into the myths that the anti-choice movement have been (oh so deviously) spewing later, but for now, I encourage you to copy and paste the following and stick it into an email OR download the word attachment, print it out, lick a stamp, and send it out. Don’t think it won’t do anything — think about it: how else is an assembly member supposed to figure out what his/her constituents are thinking and what is likely to re-elect him/her? I haven’t seen any assembly people standing on my street corner lately, asking me what I want from them… So, if the mountain won’t come to you, well, get your ass to the damned mountain already.

To determine who your assembly member and senator are, go here: http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/ and here: http://www.senate.state.ny.us/senatehomepage.nsf/senators?OpenForm.

And voilà, the letter: Letter to Assembly Member or Senator

You can also go to the NYCLU site to send a similar message.

 

Dear


I write as your constituent to urge you to sign-on as a cosponsor of the Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act. The Supreme Court decision in
Gonzales v. Carhart, permitting a ban on an abortion procedure without any exception to protect a woman’s health, is a strong blow to women’s reproductive rights. The Supreme Court’s recent actions have made it clear that Roe v. Wade is at risk, and that New York can no longer afford to rely on federal constitutional law to protect the fundamental right to make private reproductive healthcare decisions.

The Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act would help reverse the trend of increasing restrictions on women’s rights by codifying the protections of Roe v. Wade in New York State law. We must act now to strengthen the foundation for reproductive freedom in New York State law, update our archaic legal code, and ensure that women’s health is protected.

As a New Yorker, I am proud that our state has historically been a beacon and leader in women’s rights and would like to uphold this hard-earned reputation. As your constituent, I urge you to demonstrate your support for women’s health and reproductive choice by cosponsoring this critical legislation.


Sincerely,

 

The “Click” Moment

At the inter-generational feminist panel at the New School last week, Deborah Siegel mentioned her “click” moment—that moment when she realized that the personal and political struggles she faced were not hers alone but were experienced by many women.

This got me thinking: what was my “click” moment? When did it happen? I began to label myself “feminist” when I was 21, but I can’t remember some grand, transcendental instance of awakening. If anything, it was just something that, almost inevitably, blossomed.

I was raised in what many would call a traditional household. My mom stayed home and took care of the children while my dad worked. No family member was a purveyor of feminist thought; my grandmother still considers “feminism” to be something of a dirty word.

Nonetheless, when I was young my mom showed me a news article about a woman suing a department store; they had fired her for refusing to wear a skirt. My mom made clear how “old fashioned” the store’s policy was. When some boys in first grade wouldn’t let me play basketball, my parents instructed me to call them “male chauvinist pigs.” I’m not sure if they issued this advice for their own amusement or whether they really meant it, but sure enough, the next day I told each boy that he was a male chauvinist pig.

We have also had very strong females in our family, though they combined traditional lifestyles with modernist strides. My paternal grandmother was one of the first women admitted to MIT, but after one year, she got sick, her father made her stay home, and she married my grandfather soon thereafter, abandoning her studies. My maternal grandmother existed in a standard 1950s housewife routine until she was 36 and decided to go back to college to become a teacher: a highly atypical, life-changing decision for an “older woman” of her time. But we never talked about these things as “feminism”—they were just “what they did.”

When I arrived at college my freshman year, I literally thought: feminism is over, it’s unnecessary. Why? Because if I, a woman, could attend a good university (how naïve I was back then!) what more needed to be done?

If I had a click moment, it was sophomore year when the campus was gearing up for “Take Back the Night.” Some boys on my floor decided it would be hilarious to put up “Take Back the Kitchen” posters (sample stat: “Over 72% of women don’t know how to clean dishes.” Classy.) I was stunned at such blatant, crude, and cruel misogyny–in the northeast! In New York! A seed was planted but it took years to grow.

Two years later I embarked on a reading campaign of all the feminist/gender classics (de Beauvoir, Friedan, Butler, etc.) Then I saw my academic interests turn that way. As I pondered what would make my academic ventures worthwhile on a personal and political level, I decided it would be through studying historical manifestations of feminism and gender, taking away lessons, learning about differences in experience. Thus, I decided to write my master’s thesis on a Weimar German feminist: the kick-ass (if inevitably problematic) Helene Stöcker. And here I am today. After a jaunt in England helping to teach sexual ed workshops, I am now working to lend my voice to reproductive rights and feminist issues in New York and the US–and hoping that change will be wrought so that women and men will recognize themselves as “feminist” at a much younger age than I did.

I wonder what other people’s “click” moments have been. I don’t want to constrain this to women. Both men and women, looking at fashion, heterosexual and homosexual romantic/sexual relations, or the way males and females behave in a college classroom, have realized that both men and women are constrained by social constructions that mandate how they act and live. When was the moment that you realized: this is a problem?

Long and short of it from NPR’s story:

“The Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating whether a career attorney in the department was dismissed from her job because of rumors that she is a lesbian. The case grew out of a larger inquiry into the firings of U.S. attorneys and politicization at Justice under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.”

Obviously, this story might spark wide interest because of its connection to Monica Goodling and the scandal over the firing of the US attorneys, but the fact that this was front page on NPR’s website is testament to how egregious it must seem to many readers that a lawyer with an “outstanding” performance would be dismissed based on sexual orientation.

Yet, currently, there is actually no federal protection for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers who are dismissed from their jobs because of their sexuality. Right now, a weakened Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) has passed in the House and will soon face a fight in the Senate.

All I can say is: it’s 2008 and it’s been a long time coming… Of course, the act will still have to face Bush’s pen, which has threatened to slam down a big old veto on the legislation. Oh, also, by “weakened” I mean the transgendered are out of luck.

The risk of trying to pass a completely reasonable, up-to-date abortion law through the New York senate (or any senate) is that hostile lawmakers will get their hands on the law and castrate it. This castration will come in the guise of “hostile amendments.” In the case of a pro-choice law such as RHPPA, these might include antiquated and patriarchal requirements such as: judicial review, parental consent, mandatory counseling, parental notification period, waiting period.

Each of these extraordinary requirements would prove detrimental to the basic fairness and functioning of RHPPA, so over the next few weeks I will tackle them one at a time.

Welcome to the post wherein we discuss:


Judicial Review!

Summary: Judicial Review is often required if a teen is unable to receive parental consent (which happens mostly when there is fear of abuse). Of course, most pregnant teenage girls are just thrilled to trek to a courthouse and stand in front of an (often male) judge to explain why they should be allowed to have an abortion.

Issues:
1. Such a law creates a Risk of Delay:
• Some teenagers, lacking proper sex ed, may not realize they are pregnant right away.
• 86% of all counties in this country have no abortion provider. Teenagers from more rural communities will have to travel great distances and interrupt schooling and work schedules to see a judge.
• Judicial permission risks causing a delay in getting an abortion, which threatens a teenager’s physical and emotional health as an earlier abortion is safer.
• Example: Court proceedings in Minnesota routinely delayed abortions by more than one week, and sometimes up to three weeks. (Planned Parenthood)

2. The law imposes unnecessary stress and psychological burdens:
• While a majority of young women (61% in a 1991 survey) involve at least one parent, teenagers afraid of abuse frequently are unable to tell their parents.
• Judicial reviews take place during school hours when, paradoxically, teenagers will need parental consent to miss school. Proceedings can take from one to three weeks to complete, requiring lengthy absences.
• For a teenager who already lacks a familial support system, traveling to court and appearing in front of a judge can cause unneeded psychological and emotional stress to her situation.

3. Judicial rulings are arbitrary and vary by state:
• A May 28, 1992 article in the New York Times reported: “One Toledo judge [in 1991] denied permission to a 17 1/2-year-old girl, an “A” student who said she wanted an abortion because she was not financially or emotionally prepared for college and motherhood at the same time… In denying her petition, the judge told the girl’s lawyer that she had “not had enough hard knocks in her life.” Another Ohio 17 1/2-year-old was denied consent last year because she had not started paternity proceedings against the father of her 3-month-old son.”
• Individual states apply the law differently. This erratic application proves that the law is largely driven by regional bias:
• In Minnesota, the federal district court found that the state courts “denied only an infinitesimal proportion of the petitions brought since 1981″
• A study in Massachusetts found that only nine of the 477 abortion requests studied had been denied.
• An Ohio report found that the percentage of requests granted ranged from 100 percent to 2 percent, depending on the county.
• In Indiana, lawyers often refer teens to go out of state, because local judges will refuse to hold the hearing or are known to be anti-abortion.

Feminist Generations/Feminist Locations: The Continuing Vitality of Feminist Thought and Action

Here it is finally, a recap of a spectacular panel, held at the New School, March 27, 2008, with Deborah Siegel, Linda Abad, Meredith Tax, Ann Snitow, Cleopatra LaMothe, and Erica Reade.

A meeting of the feminist minds across generations came together at the New School on March 27, 2008, with a Caribbean-American queer woman (LaMothe), a Filipino migrant workers’ rights activist (Abad), a Third Wave feminist of the “post-feminist” 90s generation (Siegel), a young 20-year-old who refuses to see “feminism” as a dirty word (Reade), and two women who helped begin it all—one an academic (Snitow), one an old-time activist through and through (Tax). It was an epic panel, to say the least. In fact, it reminded me why people hold panels in the first place—not to intellectually masturbate (as can sometimes happen), but to edify and inspire.

Ann Snitow, professor at Eugene Lang College and NSSR, and editor of this amazing book, oh, and this one too, opened up the panel by discussing “generations.” Generation, to my mind, has long needed to be recognized alongside race, gender, class, and sexuality as a critical category of historical analysis. Quite simply, time passes and attitudes change and from this arises different conflicts, concerns, knowledge cores, and experiences. To ignore this is to lump issues and misunderstand the results of struggle. Snitow noted that feminists today range from age 10 to 80, which means there are a hell of a lot of generations in the mix. Recounting that when the feminist movement began in the late 1960s, any woman over 30 was shunted to the “Older Women’s Liberation” group, she wondered what today’s drastically changed demographics and attitudes could mean for feminism.

The two main questions of the night were: Is the term “Third Wave” useful, and what is “Third Wave Feminism”? Much of our current generation shuns the very term feminism; it is an unmentionable, resulting in awkward downward stares when invoked at parties. Barely able to even say the word, this generation can hardly have meaningful conversations about changing feminisms in popular discourse. But those with enough chutzpah to dwell on this question have debated pros and cons to “Third Wave.” Some worry that moving away from “Second Wave” creates needless divisions within the feminist movement. After all, we’re all women, aren’t we? they say and voice concerns that a mother vs. daughter fight will take place, the “hipsters” vs. “the women with shoulder pads.” Semi-valid concerns, perhaps, but I think it hardly realistic to argue that if we hide the name the divisions will disappear, and the reification this impulse implies is anathema to my way of thinking.

The arguments for the use of “Third Wave” are extremely powerful. Women must acknowledge not just inter- but intra-generational differences. Women today live significantly different lives than those of ’68. Feminists of ’68 tended to be white and middle to upper-middle-class, for one thing. They fought their fight and made their mistakes, but any valid feminism today must address the needs of women of all races, ethnicities, sexualities, and classes. We are working with a much different beast today, and that beast is the Third Wave. As Snitow emphasized, this does not mean that the older generation must pass the torch to the next. In fact, they should be chastised if they try to do so. How are relationships and conversations to be had and lessons learned if the older generation decides to preemptively stick its foot in the grave?

Deborah Siegel, author of Sisterhood Interrupted, gave the most comprehensive review of the Third Wave and the inter-generational problematics the term raises. She spoke of her “click” moment (the instance when she realized that her personal and political struggles were not hers alone but were unique to all women) occurring first with Anita Hill and then with the publication of a book which blamed women for turning into a victim, proposing that accusations of date rape were overblown. She was a member of the “post-feminist feminism” generation, whose primary voices announced: everything’s fine, we’ve fought all the battles, stop sobbing about it! But Siegel instead took on Rebecca Walker’s maxim in Ms. Magazine, “I am not a post-feminist feminist, I am the third wave,” with ferocity.

What is Third Wave Feminism? According to Siegel, third wave incorporates a multiplicity of identities into feminism. This means embracing the contradictions (I can be a feminist and wear lipstick), and recognizing that there are race, class, ethnic, sexuality differences that must be in conversation, if sometimes in opposition, with each other. The failure of the Second Wave to acknowledge these variations within the term “woman” first hit me while reading Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. In it, she issues a clarion call to women: have your cake and eat it too! Go to work and have kids, and if you need, hire a nanny—it’s that simple. Which begs the question: who are these nannies? What women are these nannies? And who is looking after the nannies’ kids? What does it mean for feminism, if one woman’s freedom relies on another’s exploitation, as Abad asked in speaking on Filipino female domestic workers in the US.

Siegel also reviewed specific issues on which Second and Third Wave feminism differ. Clearly, given all the older women I see running around with proud Hillary pins on their chest (in contrast to the Obama badge pinned to my bag), while one generation is focused on having a woman in the executive, another generation doesn’t think the political female face necessarily indicates an allied female mind. In general, I think my generation, for better or worse, is much less concerned with the political representation of women, and more obsessed by the cultural manufacturing of the female image. Which leads to Siegel’s second issue: Sexuality.

In one corner we have the raunch feminists of Girls Gone Wild, in the other, the older feminists yelling, “This, this is what we fought for? Wet t-shirt contests and girl-on-girl action?!” This is something I would like to address in more detail. As a young feminist who believes fully in a woman having the right to express herself freely and sexually, seeing commercials for Girls Gone Wild causes a putrid black hole to grow in my stomach. These women hardly seem to be stripping their tops off for empowerment, but instead they bask in the alienating and objectifying male gaze of the camera. Each piece of removed clothing shouts, “Hey! Look at me! I am completely insecure about my intelligence, my personality, my beauty, my weight, my worth, and unsure of ever being loved!” Perhaps if we worked on building the self-esteem of our daughters, then such a spectacle truly would be the ferocious cry of feminist sexuality. Then again, if more women were actually raised to have the same cockiness that many men do, I doubt such a malformed thing would exist. Finally, Siegel briefly addressed career: is it empowering for elite women to elect out of a career, because they prefer to stay home with house and home?

Of course, at base all these questions lead to a fundamental question with an ever-changing answer: what is sexism these days and how do we fight it? Is sexism at the origin of Girls Gone Wild (um, yes) and opting out of a career (at first glance, I would say it depends). And then the other questions flood in: Are we equal? Can we have it all? What is the relationship between personal transformation and broad change? Do we subordinate our individual desires to the greater good—what is the greater good? Have our desires been molded by the sexist society in which we live? Can we say there is just one greater good to apply as a panacea across society? Well, what is it?

In the end, it was Cleoptra LaMothe who summarized and represented what Third Wave feminism should ideally be all about. She recounted how she had just begun calling herself a feminist (she’s 21—about the same age that I started to stick the label to myself), and how, raised in a Caribbean household near Boston, there hadn’t even been a word for “feminism” or for “patriarchy” in the Haitian Creole she spoke at home. But most importantly, she talked about “different thinking” and the importance of it; the importance of not being afraid to say something different from what all the women around you are saying, the importance of not fearing that different thinking will break solidarity. Because, in the end: different thinking is vital to deconstructing patriarchy in all its forms.

In her words, “We hear the feminism is about women—but what “women” does one mean?”

Identity politics can become complex and intimidating, inconclusive and thus frustrating, but, as Snitow said, “You can’t do without identity politics—difference is our condition.” But she emphasized that that wasn’t enough. You can’t just rest there, you need to start talking, finding common ground, and working together.

It has crossed my mind that some, who come to this blog for RHPPA and sexual health posts, may wonder why the devil this woman keeps spending so much time on feminism and the historical experiences of women. Well, partly, it’s because I can. But at the end of the panel, Snitow summed up the larger picture of this all—the real reason why an expanded view is necessary alongside the specifics of pro-choice rights. Snitow expressed her frustration over the fact that even though there are new generations with new concerns, we are still fighting for some of the same issues we were in ’68. “How many times can you ask for abortion?” she asked, throwing her hands up into the air. “I’m 64 and I’m still asking for abortion! But,” she said, “it was never just about abortion.” Opposition has whittled down the movement and the idealism of the 1970s has been replaced with a necessary irony today, Snitow concluded. And this is true, as we struggle again and again for the same thing and realize that the personal is political is cultural is historical. But I think the inclusiveness and multiplicity of voices in Third Wave feminism is inspiring. It means taboos are being lifted and it is getting easier to talk, and with talking comes action.

Just a reminder to go to this tonight! It should be a great cross-generational discussion on the state of feminism– a much needed conversation! And for those who can’t make it, I’ll have a recap later tonight or tomorrow.

 

 

CELEBRATE WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH


THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2008
66 WEST 12TH ST., ROOM 407
6:30-8 PM

FEMINIST GENERATIONS/


FEMINIST LOCATIONS:


THE CONTINUING VITALITY OF FEMINIST

THOUGHT AND ACTION

A PANEL DISCUSSION ABOUT
THE STATE OF FEMINISM ACROSS GENERATIONS WITH:

DEBORAH SIEGEL, author of Sisterhood, Interrupted

LINDA ABAD of Damayan Migrant Workers Association

MEREDITH TAX of Women’s World
(a founder of Boston’s Bread & Roses – 1969)

ANN SNITOW of Eugene Lang College and NSSR
(a founder of New York Radical Feminists – 1969)

CLEOPATRA LAMOTHE of Women of Color Collective, Lang

ERICA READE of Moxie, New School Feminist Club


Sponsored by the Gender Studies Working Group
& Eugene Lang College Special Projects

Contacts: Ann Snitow, snitowa@newschool.edu
Soraya Field Fiorio, fiors393@newschool.edu

Lusty Ruling Ladies

Not like we haven’t been deluged with the whole Spitzer scandal, but I thought this post by Judith Shulevitz at Slate’s XX Factor really summed up many of my thoughts at the public airing of the proverbial dirty laundry. First, let me state, that I think Spitzer was right to step down from office. Not because I think all philandering politicans should do so, but because it would have been impossible for him to get anything done as a such a reformist governor with such blatant hypocrisy in his near past. Can you imagine the shit show? Spitzer: “This act is critical to modernize New York’s current abortion laws…” Peanut Gallery: “Why guv’nor, you knocked up a prostitute lately?” Etc. But, I really don’t feel that the public has the need or right to morally or personally judge a politician’s personal sex life, as long as that sex life doesn’t get in the way of his political work.

A post by Courtney at Feministing soon after the scandal broke asked whether it would be better to have a woman in office, i.e. would we be better off with Hillary than Obama in light of the fact that men just can’t seem to keep it in their pants? This sort of reaction left an terribly bad taste in my mouth. It seemed to create two categories in life:

A. Promiscuous boys who will be boys

B. Virtuous, moralistic ladies

Hmm, sound familiar, all ye Victorianites? Judith at XX Factor summed up part of this argument and made the completely worthwhile point that maybe women shouldn’t be so concerned with male politicians’ sex lives when we need to work on bolstering abortion rights, economic equality in the workplace, national day care, etc. etc.

I’m not saying there aren’t lessons to be learned from this. Namely, that we should look into the institution of prostitution in America and how it’s regulated–a point I need to do more reading on. On the one hand, I think it makes sense complete sense to have it regulated; on the other hand, do we really want the police regulating prostitution? I just can’t imagine that ending well for the girls.

And as a reminder, one gender is not essentially more prone to sexual scandal or promiscuity than another. Assuming so is what we call essentialization; it can lead to other bad things, such as assuming that women are inherently more suited to the humanities than the sciences; or that women are the natural caregivers. What we may have is one gender more prone to getting elected to a place of public power, another issue we should focus on instead of sexual scandal.

I’d like to start a list of some Lusty Ruling Laaaadies. Here’s a few to begin:

Catherine the Great
Elizabeth I
Margaret Thatcher (just kidding… I think… though I have heard of a Thatcher/Reagan flirtation…hmmm…)

Any other additions to the Lusty Ruling Ladies list?

In honor of Back Up Your Birth Control Day, I wanted to do a quick post on Emergency Contraception: the myths, the facts.

The Myth: “Abortion Pill”: Anti-Choice groups would have you believe that Emergency Contraception IS an abortion. It is not:

1. The woman is not pregnant: Medical authorities agree that it takes a few days for an egg to become implanted in the lining of the uterus. EC is taken within 120 hours of intercourse, meaning that there is no pregnancy to stop when it is taken.

2. EC = Birth Control: EC is not an abortifacent, it is merely a more concentrated dose of the regular birth control pill a woman would normally take. It is merely a “back-up” in case the original contraception went awry.

3. If the woman IS already pregnant by the time EC is taken, the EC will not disrupt the pregnancy is any way.

The Facts: EC is a Contraceptive Back-Up:

1. EC is safe. Approved by the FDA in 1997, it was deemed to cause no serious side effects.

2. EC reduces the risk of pregnancy by 75% if taken within 120 hours.

3. EC should be over-the-counter for women over 18, according to a 2006 FDA ruling. (Though don’t get me started on this age limit, cutting it off from those young women who are often the most likely to need it.)

According to The New England Journal of Medicine, emergency contraception could prevent as many as 1.7 million of the approximately 3 million unintended pregnancies each year.

The Opponents: Nonetheless, Anti-Choice groups, pharmacists, and religious hospitals deliberately spread misinformation and threaten access to EC:

1. Anti-Choice groups such as American Life League, Human Life International, and Stop Planned Parenthood International oppose EC and have maliciously misinformed a populace that EC is an abortifacent.

2. Individual pharmacists have refused to fill young women’s prescriptions for EC, mistakenly believing it to be an abortifacent.

3. Many Catholic hospitals do not offer EC, even to women who have been raped. A study of the nation’s nearly 600 Catholic hospital emergency rooms found that only 28 percent offered EC to women who had been raped (CFFC, 2002).

For more information, please go to NARAL Pro-Choice New York or Planned Parenthood.

Need EC? Go here quick!

I wonder, what is people’s general sense of EC? Is this information wide-spread, or have you had misconceptions on EC in the past? Where have you heard about EC from? I don’t think I was ever informed about it in my high school sex ed classes…

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »