A 72-Hour Wait for Santorum

This past weekend, a student sent me an email with a question about the "Born Alive Infant Bill" (the bill that Obama's opposition to when he was still a Senator had him slapped with accusations of supporting "infanticide") and I found myself writing back a 500+ word response about fetal pain laws, how gestational age affects legislation around abortion, and pro-life politics/policies while simultaneously trying to temper my response so that I wouldn't scare my student off.

(I don't think that politics of this type really have a place in the classroom; it's my job to make my students think and learn how to ask difficult questions, not to preach or "convert" them to my way of thinking--that never works, anyway.)

It turns out my student was appreciative of my, unnecessarily verbose, explanation and the whole back-and-forth got me thinking that I need/want to formulate a more extensive response to the state of the reproductive rights debate in America these days. That said, consider this blog post a placeholder for that analysis, as I have something like 75 papers to grade in the next week and should be focusing my efforts on that.

In the meantime, enjoy this related video made by Ashley Judd (my new hero) and a number of other recognizable faces. I'm not usually one to joke about reproductive rights, but in this case I'll make an exception because this video is amazing:

Rick Santorum Aborts Presidential Campaign from Ashley Judd

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

I can't say I'm thrilled with the direction we're heading in as a country (understatement of the century), but I do find it heartening that, perhaps because of the absurd way women have and continue to be treated by the socio-political matrix and media institutions, more and more women and men are crying "foul."

The Good: Ashley Judd's incredible missive indicting gender inequality and unrealistic media scrutiny. It's amazing; you should go read it. Here's a quote to convince you:

Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women.

[On a side note, this article reminded me that I've been meaning to watch Judd's new show Missing, particularly because I'm very interested in (and working toward writing an article about) the framing of the mother as the ideal woman warrior in contemporary culture--i.e. Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, the Kill Bill films, etc.]

The Bad: It seems to be Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's deepest desire to see the status of women regress back to the 1950s, if his sneaky, Friday afternoon, pre-Easter passing of several anti-woman bills is anything to go by. From the Ms. blog:

For nearly a year, half of Wisconsin has been up in arms over Walker’s repeal of union rights, which the state Supreme Court upheld last June. Gov. Walker may have sealed his claim to infamy, however, when he sneakily passed 51 laws last Thursday, four of which target women. He waited until Friday, hours before the Easter weekend began, to make his public announcement—a way to sidestep the inevitable outcry.

Three of the bills curbed women’s reproductive rights: two heavy-handed abortion restrictions and a law mandating abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in lieu of comprehensive sex education.

The law causing the real uproar, however, might just be the most surprising blow to women dealt by any state government in 2012. Gov. Walker turned back the clock on gender equality in the workforce by repealing Wisconsin’s 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act (EPEA), which permitted victims of wage discrimination to take their cases to state circuit courts. The law not only protected women from pay discrimination, but also from sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Ugly: As if all that's not bad enough, both Arizona and Georgia recently passed 20-week abortion bans, the Georgia one specifically insisting abortions after 20 weeks be made illegal in all cases except "medically futile" pregnancies (where there is no chance that the fetus will survive the pregnancy or be able to live once born); no exceptions are to be made that relate to the mother's mental or emotional state and abortions performed because of medical futility must be performed in such a way as to avoid "fetal pain"--so the fetus is removed alive and dies "naturally." Yes, really. However, the real kicker is that in the original bill there was no such medical futility exemption; state representative Terry England went so far as to compare women to livestock, suggesting that mothers, like cows and pigs, should have to carry their offspring to term, dead or alive.

Yeah. I don't even know.

Let's focus on the good today, shall we?

NY State Approves Gay Marriage Bill

I still feel a little burn from the turnaround in California with Prop 8, so I can only manage cautious optimism...but, nevertheless, this is very exciting!

From the NY Times:

Passage of same-sex marriage here followed a daunting run of defeats in other states where voters barred same-sex marriage by legislative action, constitutional amendment or referendum. Just five states currently permit same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia.

At around 10:30 p.m., moments after the vote was announced, Mr. Cuomo strode onto the Senate floor to wave at cheering supporters who had crowded into the galleries to watch. Trailed by two of his daughters, the governor greeted lawmakers, and paused to single out those Republicans who had defied the majority of their party to support the marriage bill.

“How do you feel?” he asked Senator James S. Alesi, a suburban Rochester Republican who voted against the measure in 2009 and was the first to break party ranks this year. “Feels good, doesn’t it?”

The approval of same-sex marriage represented a reversal of fortune for gay-rights advocates, who just two years ago suffered a humiliating defeat when a same-sex marriage bill was easily rejected by the Senate, which was then controlled by Democrats. This year, with the Senate controlled by Republicans, the odds against passage of same-sex marriage appeared long.

Article up at The New Republic

I'm very pleased to report that I have a post/article up at The New Republic's website on Geraldine Ferraro's legacy (thanks to C.S. for the opportunity!).

An excerpt:

When news reached me this past weekend that Geraldine Ferraro had succumbed to cancer at the relatively tender age of 75, I felt an inexplicable sense of loss. This wasn’t a generic sensation—the abstracted sadness we inevitably feel when public figures die—or a civic mourning for the loss of a champion of women’s rights. Rather, my feeling of loss stemmed from something I never had, a sense of nostalgia for a moment I didn’t experience.

Ferraro’s funeral is today, her death justifiably triggering a surge of tributes and recollections about her life and career, including my own. I was born only a year before Walter Mondale made the groundbreaking decision to name Ferraro as his running mate, making her the first female vice presidential candidate for a national political party. Needless to say, I was not aware at the time of the momentousness of the occasion, but that doesn’t mean that his choice and her narrative do not affect me. It’s a trap that many of us fall into: assuming that those who did not experience an event first-hand won’t feel its ripple effects in time.

Ferraro’s nomination signified hope—a hope that a country mired in institutionalized misogyny could one day see its way to true equality between the sexes. Now, 27 years later, her death compels me to wonder whether we’ve seen much progress.

Read the rest here.

Daniel Craig in Drag for International Women's Day

I'm a bit late on this, but here's Daniel Craig and Dame Judi Dench (v.o.) in their International Women's Day PSA.

"We're equal, aren't we Mr. Bond?"



(h/t Female Impersonator)

Secretary Clinton Celebrates the 100th Anniversary of International Women's Day

Just a little reminder on the importance of women's issues (particularly global ones) from our Secretary of State:

The War on Women

An important op-ed in The New York Times from Friday (h/t Feminist Law Professors for the link):

The War on Women

Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families. And this is just the beginning.

The budget bill pushed through the House last Saturday included the defunding of Planned Parenthood and myriad other cuts detrimental to women. It’s not likely to pass unchanged, but the urge to compromise may take a toll on these programs. And once the current skirmishing is over, House Republicans are likely to use any legislative vehicle at hand to continue the attack.

The egregious cuts in the House resolution include the elimination of support for Title X, the federal family planning program for low-income women that provides birth control, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and testing for H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted diseases. In the absence of Title X’s preventive care, some women would die. The Guttmacher Institute, a leading authority on reproductive health, says a rise in unintended pregnancies would result in some 400,000 more abortions a year.

An amendment offered by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, would bar any financing of Planned Parenthood. A recent sting operation by an anti-abortion group uncovered an errant employee, who was promptly fired. That hardly warrants taking aim at an irreplaceable network of clinics, which uses no federal dollars in providing needed abortion care. It serves one in five American women at some point in her lifetime.

You can read the rest here.

A Feminist Countdown to 2011 ~ Day Eighteen

See the full calendar here.

A Feminist Countdown to 2011 ~ Day Sixteen

See the full calendar here.

President Obama: It Gets Better

One of the first things President Obama's done in a while to make me happy that I voted for him:



Also, a compelling feature by Peter Baker in this past week's New York Times Magazine assuaged a wee bit of my presidentially-motivated ire. You can find the online version of it here.

And, obviously, thanks to Dan Savage for starting all of this.

Secretary Hilary Clinton: "Tomorrow Will Be Better"

Secretary Clinton (then candidate Clinton) was one of the reasons I started this blog two years ago. I'm so pleased to see she hasn't changed:

Prop 8 and the Supreme Court

David S. Cohen has an interesting piece up over at Feminist Law Professors about Prop 8 and whether the gay marriage debate will still be relevant by the time the appeal reaches the Supreme Court:

Not only is there momentum, but there's also demographics. Gay marriage has much more support by younger voters than older voters. Four years is enough to make a huge difference in this regard, as older voters die off and younger people become voters (or, if voting age already, become more consistent voters).

Thus, in November 2012, I think it's a pretty good bet that the voters of California will vote for same-sex marriage. They voted down same-sex marriage in 2008 by only 4 points. In 2012, they'll probably vote in favor of same-sex marriage by a small, but definite margin. Prop 8 will be history. Assuming a normal appeals process, involving a panel of the Ninth Circuit, an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit, then a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court, followed by briefing and argument, I just can't imagine the Supreme Court deciding before November 2012.

Free Sakineh

A most worthwhile petition; please consider following the link and signing (also post to Facebook, Twitter, etc.):

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a 43 year old mother of two, was convicted in May 2006 of having an “illicit relationship” with two men and received 99 lashes as her sentence. Despite already having been punished, she has now been further convicted of “adultery” and has been sentenced to death by stoning.

See the petition for more information and/or read Marina Nemat's statement further down on the same page. She writes, in part:

Iran’s political prisons, including Evin, are still quite operational. People are tortured and executed in Iran on a daily basis. When atrocities happen, those who remain silent and don’t speak or act against evil become its accomplices. We cannot afford to wait for governments to bring about real change. I believe in the power of the individual. Each one of us can make the world a better place, even if only one small step at a time. We can create a ripple effect that will expand and eventually turn into a tsunami.

Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani has been condemned to death in Iran. There are many others who are languishing like her in their grave-like cells, maybe facing painful deaths. They are not alone or forgotten. Even if we don’t know all their names, we are with them. I do not believe in violence, but I do believe in the power of voices coming together as one. Let’s get our voices heard.

Again, if you feel that this is a worthy cause (and, really, how can you not?), please sign the petition.

For more information, you can check out these news stories (among others):

Will We Again Abandon Afghan Women? | The New York Times

Details scarce surrounding Iranian widow’s ‘crimes’ | Globe and Mail

Iran stoning sentence woman asks to be reunited with her children | The Guardian

An Appeal for Sakineh Mohammadie Ashtiani | The Huffington Post

Marriage: a political prerequisite?

Is Marriage a Political Litmus Test?

New post up at the Ms. blog (I promise I'll post something just for FWF again soon; I've just been a little swamped with deadlines and sundry):

Last week, Al and Tipper Gore announced that they are getting a divorce after 40 years of marriage. It’s a “mutual and mutually supportive decision,” according to an email the Gores sent to friends and family. Since their announcement, the internet has been a-twitter with a fair degree of disappointment and confusion. To many, the Gores’ marriage epitomized an ideal union: an equal partnership, free of scandals and palpably romantic (over the past week, blogs, newspapers and cable news shows alike have been obsessing over the validity of the Gores’ steamy kiss at the 2000 Democratic National Convention).

Ultimately, it’s immaterial why the Gores have decided to separate. They’re clearly both responsible adults, capable of making their own choices and it’s frankly none of our business. However, their announcement did get me thinking about the importance of marriage in today’s political arena and, in particular, the burden of expectation placed upon the political spouse to behave a certain way in both the public and private sphere.

Read the rest of the post here!

Sarah Palin Redux

Check out a great post over at the Ms. blog that's related to my response to Sarah Palin and her recent return(s) to the media spotlight (had she really ever left?).

Ms. blogger Audrey's analysis is spot-on:

At the Arizona rally, Palin trotted out the maverick label and praised McCain for his anti-Obama outsiderness. But her speech had a subversive undercurrent, working the seam of age and gender at McCain’s expense. For example, to illustrate how McCain’s “man of the people” stance hasn’t won him friends in Washington, she drew on her own expertise in beauty pageants, chuckling that “He could win the talent and debate portion of any pageant, but no one’s going to dub him Miss Congeniality.” Picturing McCain in a beauty contest is inherently incongruous (would he tap dance for talent?), and then to invoke him as Miss Congeniality? Such a title feminizes him and gives Palin a home-field advantage: She was, after all, Miss Wasilla–and Miss Congeniality.

(I meant to post this last week, but it completely slipped my mind!)

Sarah Palin Back on TV -- What's the Harm?

I have a new post up at Ms. Magazine's blog (my first!). Here's an excerpt:

Discovery Networks’ announcement of its newest acquisition, Sarah Palin’s Alaska, a documentary series hosted by the state’s former governor, left me feeling conflicted. On the one hand, any mention of John McCain’s running mate provokes involuntary full-body shudders. I spent the presidential election campaign in a state of anxious high alert, wondering what Gov. Palin would say or do next. Wondering, in other words, what further platforms she’d find to display her homophobia (I’m sorry, tolerance for gay and lesbian lifestyles) or to pontificate about being staunchly anti-choice.

On the other hand, should her appearance on something as innocuous as an 8-hour Alaskan travelogue “told by one of the state’s proudest daughters” (according to Peter Liguori, chief operating officer of Discovery Communications) really inspire angst? What’s the harm if Palin coasts on her fifteen minutes of fame a little longer? She certainly wouldn’t be the first politician to delay her inevitable (hopefully) ride into the sunset.

But here’s the root of my unease: Despite the fact that the series will likely have nothing to do with politics, the idea of Sarah Palin’s Alaska isn’t innocuous.

Read the complete post (with links and photos and videos!) over at Ms.!

By the way, Ms. only just launched its blog a few weeks ago, and they have an excellent group of bloggers posting every day on a wide variety of topics. Take an hour to peruse the entire blog and/or add it to your feeds!

Mu Sochua

The NY Times just ran an article on Mu Sochua, a woman I'm ashamed to say I'd never heard of before. She's a women's rights activist and political figure in Cambodia, and has accomplished a great deal over the last two decades, fighting against domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, child trafficking, and generally raising the profile of women's rights and gender issues in Cambodia.

Her work is limited, unfortunately, by - what else - politics.

The gist of the Times articles is that nobody, including other women in power, wants to have anything to do with Mu Sochua or her agenda, because she opposes the majority government. The majority, needless to say, has made little progress for women's rights, preferring to maintain the status quo. It seems the entire political culture of the country will have to be changed before any real progress is made.

And she's trying - taking on general interest issues, building a reputation for herself among the people. Perhaps someday, Mu Sochua will have the impact on Cambodia that she really ought to.

(Mu Sochua's Website)

(By the way - did anyone think that the title of the Times article was bizarre - "The Female Factor" - what's that supposed to be about?)

You're never getting that station wagon back, Obama

This isn't strictly feminist, but it's political and too damn true not to share (specifically starting around the 1 minute mark). The idea that Obama needs to drift further to the center/right is just asinine.



"Dude, where's your car?"

"I gave the Republicans the keys."

"Why?!"

"They said they'd be nice to me if I did."

"You're never getting that station wagon back, man."

"So giving them my house keys was a bad idea, too?"

"Dude."

Yeah. Something like that.

Mea culpa, Hillary Clinton and Prop 8

First, the mea culpa: I am a no good, very bad blogger. I took a holiday break with the promise to return after the New Year, and then what did I do? I vanished! Okay, so I've been a little bit overwhelmed--trying to finish the final (final!) revisions on my dissertation, preparing for classes (first class was today), traveling over the holidays--but that's really no excuse. Blogging is fun and I'd like to be able to make time for it at least several times a week. So there you go--an apology and a New Year's resolution all in one. Hence forth, I will try to be better to my blog: pet her, feed her, walk her, play fetch...and...and I think that metaphor's over now, don't you?

Never mind. In any case, I'm going to start posting again fo' real tomorrow, but just to get me back into the swing of things, here are a few interesting items from this week's news.

1. According to The Washington Post, there are current 25 female ambassadors in DC, the highest number ever and a steep increase from ten years ago. I just think that's awesome. And you know what's awesomer? Quoting the Post:

A key reason is the increase in the number of top U.S. diplomats who are women, what some call the "Hillary effect."

"Hillary Clinton is so visible" as secretary of state, said Amelia Matos Sumbana, who just arrived as ambassador from Mozambique. "She makes it easier for presidents to pick a woman for Washington."

If it didn't make me feel like I was regressing back to my adolescence, I would put a smiley face here in place of this sentence.

2. In other Hillary news, Tracy Clark-Flory over at Salon Broadsheet has a nice little piece about the Secretary of State's recent speech about women's and human rights. Clark-Flory begins

Maybe you're feeling apathetic toward the plight of the world's women, or perhaps you're suffering from an acute case of Feminist Outrage Fatigue™. Well, you will be slapped right out of that stupor by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech Friday commemorating the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). She dished out familiar rhetoric -- like her famous line, "women's rights are human rights" -- but also dropped some cold, hard facts on our privileged first-world asses.

Check the site for the rest of her re-cap and, as for Clinton's actual speech, you can watch it on CSPAN.com or read the transcript.

3. There's great story in next week's Newsweek (online here) about Ted Olson, a prominent Republican lawyer--the lawyer, in fact, who won the court case that got George W. Bush "elected" president. (Remember that business? Ten years ago? Gore won but then Bush became president. Yeah, that.) Since I just said it's a great piece about Olson, you're probably thinking that he's involved in some kind of sex scandal or someone's revealed he eats kittens or its some other article ripping him to shreds. Au contraire, my friends.

Entitled "The Conscience of a Conservative," Eve Conant's story discusses Olson's involvement in a case he feels passionately about, so passionately that he's defying many of his conservative colleagues who think he's being an asshat (Conant writes that his conservative peers "have accused him of apostasy, and of trying to bend the Constitution to fit clandestine liberal views," but I'm sure they're really calling him an asshat in private). Ted Olson, former Bush Administration lawyer, will be arguing for gay marriage in the federal Prop 8 hearings starting this week. Yep, you read that right. For gay marriage. Writes Conant:

Olson's brief against Prop 8 is straightforward: laws banning gay marriage not only make no sense, they are unconstitutional. As a conservative, he says he believes in individual liberty and freedom from government interference in the private lives of citizens. Discriminating against people because of sexual orientation is a violation of both. "This case could change the way people think about one another," says Olson. "We are forever putting people into this box or that box, instead of just seeing each other as human beings."

This is the kind of conservatism I can get behind. Olson still considers himself a conservative, but he's very rationally decided that despite his politics he can't get behind the standard conservative party line (that's the "oppressing gay people" party line, in case I'm not being clear). I can't abide when people use unfounded, ungrounded and/or untenable arguments to support "causes" (that, in this case, disenfranchise--or, actually, support the continued disenfranchisement--of an entire minority group) just in order to 'fall in line' with their political party. (Are we sheep being herded by a grumpy, toothy border collie? I hope not.)

The growing partisan rift in Congress--where nothing gets done because everyone refuses to put a toe over the line-in-the-sand between Democratic and Republican "policy"--is totally scary, and this Newsweek story was just a little light at the end of the tunnel that makes me feel less sad about it all. Hopefully that light won't turn into an oncoming train...

Gay Marriage and Gay Mayors

Considering moving to either Washington D.C. or Houston, TX. Aren't you?

D.C. Council Approves Gay Marriage:

“Today’s vote is an important victory not only for the gay and lesbian community but for everyone who supports equal rights,” said Councilman David A. Catania, an independent and the author of the bill.

Opponents have vowed to overturn the bill by putting it to a referendum or by working with Congress, which has a month to review the measure once it is signed.

[...]

Councilman Catania opposes putting the matter to a popular vote. He noted that in a referendum in 1865, only 36 of the city’s residents voted to extend the franchise to African-American men.

“It isn’t that I’m fearful of losing,” Mr. Catania said. “I think the process is diminishing. I think that putting the rights of minorities on the ballot and allowing the forces of intolerance to spend an unlimited amount to demonize and marginalize a population is unsavory.” (emphasis mine)

And...a great political cartoon from the Houston Chronicle (via the Bilerico Project) about Houston's new openly-lesbian mayor-elect, Annise Parker.