Feminism Is For Everyone

Jan 31, 2009,2:09 PM

eight babies at once.

Read about proud mother Nadya Suleman, who made headline news for giving birth to eight babies (all of which are currently breathing on their own, a modern-day miracle).

Equally miraculous (though somewhat unsurprising) - these babies were not conceived naturally.

I find it troubling that we as a society are so judgmental of women who terminate a natural pregnancy for a reason as frivolous as "they just don't want a baby right now". For all intents and purposes, this woman conceived eight children at once (through a sperm donor and undisclosed fertility enhancement treatment), a feat which put all eight babies in grave danger (with her babies weighing in between 1 lb, 8 oz and 3 lb, 4 oz), and will now raise these babies without an income, relying on her parents for financial support of her 14-children family, for a reason as frivolous as "she just wants to have more children".

We as a society have respected this woman's right to choose.

PS - Thanks to my friend (and blog contributor) Celeste for the article.

Jan 29, 2009,6:36 PM

Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill Becomes Law!

The FIRST bill that President Obama signed into law!!

Jan 28, 2009,1:47 PM

Lily Ledbetter Bill is through the House!

The House passed the Lily Ledbetter bill on Tuesday! It is reported that this is the first major legislation President Obama will pass.

Here's the NYTimes article..

Jan 23, 2009,7:40 PM

thank you, president obama!

finally! the global gag rule is overturned!

thank you, president obama (feels so good to say that) for supporting women's right, around the world, to choose!

Labels: global feminism, president obama

Jan 22, 2009,9:11 PM

Virginia Feminists in Action

Thought you might like to know about some very anti-choice legislation that may be going to the General Assembly this season. No, not about abortion choice, but it is about reproductive choice. When you read what I will write below, many of you will think this has nothing to do with you. You may lose interest in the topic or think it is too "out there" for you. But it is about choice and it is a very very real feminist issue in the United States today.

Del. Matthew Lohr out of Harrisonburg is considering pushing two bills that would restrict women from midwifery care in Virginia.

Why this applies to you:
When I was your age I thought the safest place to have a baby was in a hospital with an OB. OB/GYN care was the only care I knew, it was the best care, and I'd have nothing but the best for me and my baby...whenever that would be. I have learned a lot since my days at UVA. I can recommend numerous books and articles that discuss the countless studies done worldwide that prove that most women and babies have better birth outcomes with a professional midwife's care compared to that of an OB. OB care should be reserved for high risk women and quite simply, most women are not high risk. If bills like this get passed into laws, by the time some of you are choosing a care provider for a pregnancy you may be more limited by VA laws (laws that have come a long way I may add) than you may like. You may read many of the books I did. You may see The Business of Being Born and question our country's norms for childbirth. But if you choose to have a Certified Professional Midwife (CPM) by your side instead of an OB/GYN, well, you may have to have your baby in another state.

It is about choice and it is about optimal care for mothers and babies. What really gets me upset is how bills like this even get started. Did a bunch of mothers complain about their CPM care? Is there a problem with a few naughty midwives that has made Del. Lohr so enthusiastic about limiting our access to midwives? If so I haven't heard of anything like that....I hear that the doctors are worried about the CPMs not giving quality care. Hmmm. The idea that doctors are more worried about the health and well-being of women and their babies than the women themselves is such a reflection of how women are treated in this country. Do they really think women who choose midwives or to have their babies at home are uneducated? Quite the contrary!

To learn more about these bills or midwifery, please see Midwife Monologues. It is the blog of two amazing Charlottesville midwives. Please consider sending Del. Lohr a very quick email asking him to pull HB 2163 and HB 2167. It is more the quantity of emails than the length/quality. Another thing you can do is start supporting your local Certified Nurse Midwives by getting your annual exams with them instead of a doctor. You will immediately experience the difference between the midwives' model of care vs. the medical model. You too may want a CPM someday and it is never too early to learn about the differences in the care between the three types of providers.

Jan 21, 2009,10:46 PM

Obama v. Bush on Abortion

Also in the spirit of the Roe v. Wade anniversary, here's an interesting short article that sums up the different approach Obama will take toward abortion and sex education.

"President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims."

8:26 AM

Mexico City Policy Update!

That's right, folks: Tomorrow marks the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established that abortions fall under women's right to privacy (under the due process clause in the 14th amendment). Although there is considerable discourse regarding feminism and abortion (some of it much more reputable than other parts), I think we can all agree that strong reproductive health policy and high-quality care for women are important feminist goals. But that's not what I'm talking about today.

Today I want to draw your attention to an important political change on the horizon--a policy that Obama will most likely overturn tomorrow, the anniversary of Roe v Wade.

The Mexico City Policy (sometimes called the Global Gag Rule) requires international non-governmental organizations to "agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds" that they will "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". This means that not only can international NGO health care providers (read: the kind that serve extremely poor and extremely rural populations) not use U.S. funds to perform abortions, buy abortion-related supplies, or create pamplets/presentations explaining the option of abortion to their clients (even when abortion in legal in their country), but they also are not permitted to use their own money--fundraised by their employees or their community, private donations, and funds from other countries--for these things. Not only that, but the policy also restricts the discussion of the dangers of illegal abortions, post-abortion counseling, and the referral of women who seek abortions to safe providers.

If this doesn't make you angry--it should. Earlier this month, the Center for Reproductive Rights published this short, easy-to-read article about Mexico City Policy, rebuking several of the most-used lines used to defend it. Let's keep our fingers crossed that Obama follows through with his promise to going past "worn-out dogma" and shows his commitment to women's health internationally!

For more: Population Action International, The Center for Reproductive Rights

Jan 14, 2009,5:07 PM

uncomfortable...

hey fifers! hope everyone had a great break :)

i was reading this on jezebel.com today, about being made uncomfortable by the men one encounters in everyday situations. at first i thought the blogger (Sadie) was going a bit over-the-top, saying that her friend doesn't want to go back to a corner store because the man working behind-the-counter (whom she thinks is married), says things to her like, 'I've missed your pretty smile,' and 'you haven't been in this week'.

Sadie lost me again when she explained that the comments are examples of "the smaller things you need to guard against, day in and day out, that you can't be too friendly, because it just leaves you...open."

HOWEVER, I was perusing the comments section of the article and there was SO MUCH female solidarity on this issue. SO many women were writing in and agreeing that there have been several situations in which they felt really uncomfortable, and somewhat vulnerable to the most benign comments or compliments.

I wanted to ask if any fifers have experienced this...and what do you think it stems from?

I think maybe our discomfort stems from the very rigid norms established about the level and the extent to which women can be associated with men. It is acceptable to joke with your male peers (but not men much older than you...), and even then, only the ones that you would be okay dating or being friends with. Any deeper or further association can be deemed as dangerous.

Looking back on most of the times that I have been "uncomfortable", the situations were completely harmless. The men whose kindness I rebuked, in all likelihood, were simply extending courtesy in a way that I have been socialized to reject. Not every man who says "you have a beautiful smile" really means, "I want to get into your pants".

Like I said, I understand that this issue resonates with women, especially as we continue our ongoing fight to end domestic violence and rape - our society condemns victims for flirting too much because it is somehow egging on their attackers... but with our anger against these small comments, are we becoming too trigger-happy against men?

11:29 AM

Take Back the Night 2009

They tell us it happened because we were on the street, or at home; because we were in the office, or in the classroom; because we were out at night, or during the day; because we were off Grounds, or our clothes were too tight; because we are queer, or we have the wrong kind of sex; because we are the wrong color, or the wrong class; because we are transgendered; because we are the wrong religion; because we drank too much, or were out studying too late; because boys will be boys; because we were not in our bedrooms, but in the wrong neighborhood. They tell us it didn't really happen because we were dating the person; because women cannot rape, because men cannot be assaulted.

Take back the day. Take back the night. Take back our bodies. Take up the fight.

Jan 6, 2009,12:31 PM

One Step Forward for Fair Pay!

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act will very soon be in the House of Representatives for votes. (The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed in the House last time, but the Republicans filibustered it the Senate and the Paycheck Fairness Act also passed in the House but never made it to the Senate floor)

The LiIlly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act corrects the Supreme Court decision that doesn't allow workers to get wages back unless the discrimination occured less than 6 months prior (yeah, how bogus is that?). The Paycheck Fairness Act closes loopholes in the Equal Pay Act and protects workers who disclose their wages.