Recently in feminism Category

Time to Take Down the Christian Coalition

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Hot off the presses:  Georgia's Christian Coalition is opposing a bill that will help prostituted children.  Yup, they are

Their efforts are in response to a coalition of child advocacy groups in Georgia that are working to reform the State's response to juvenile offenders, which includes juveniles who have been arrested for prostituted. (Oh, and yes, juveniles (those under the age of consent) are arrested for prostitution when discovered by law enforcement that they are willing to trade sex for money, drugs, housing, etc.) 

I'm hoping that the Left uses this to their advantage as much as possible.  Let's Fox News this shit-- I want a headline that reads as follows:  Christian Coalition Doesn't Care About Child Sex Victims.

Now I'm not a huge supporter of labeling prostituted youth as victims-- I'd rather think of them as survivors of the sex trade.  However, I'm completely in support for knocking down the Right as much as possible.  Let's face it: it's not like they play fair with the media.  Let's use some their own sleaziness for our advantage, shall we? 

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
I haven't been this fired up since I wrote about the Nelson-Hatch amendment!  No, it's not about how the Democrats have failed again (though they still are-- vote Green!)-- this time it's a greater feminist battle:  the discussion about a woman's social role and gain. 

Lori Gottlieb wrote this article in 2008, which advised that women should settle and just get married.  Yes, you heard me right, settle.  Not only should you settle, but you should do it early when at least you can get a kid out of it.  Rightly, there many responses to her article, such as here and here and here

But Lori Gottlieb's article has now become a book!  Titled Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough, her book is already being sold on Amazon.  (Not posting the link-- I don't want a flood of feminist clicks to signal Amazon that they should be carrying more of these types of books).  Once again, and rightly so, critics are responding to her article debunking many of her claims. 

That is not my feminist tirade, however.  My tirade is how all of the critics have focused on the wrong issue:  Lori Gottlieb.  Turns out that Lori is a 42 single mom, and that she herself cannot actually bring herself to settle because she can't think of anyone whom would be good enough for her kid.  As Ms. Gottlieb states, "It's one thing to settle for a subpar mate; it's quite another to settle for a subpar father figure for my child."  Ha ha, look at the hypocrite! 

Yes, yes, it's all fun and games to point out when someone does not, in fact, walk their own walk.  However, Ms. Gottlieb's personal life doesn't bother me.  To me, she is merely a person who is lamenting about what she wished she could have (or maybe what she wished was different), and, really, her personal choice to not get married, now desire to be married, be a mother, have a father for her child and write about her feelings are her own personal choice.  Yay for feminism to allow her to write things so openly that I vehemently disagree with.  Another yay for feminism that she is a famous social commentator who has been featured on NPR, This American Life, The New York Times, The Atlantic and Salon, among others. 

But not one of her critics used this opportunity to discuss critical feminist theory.  The idea that women have been so ingrained with the thought that marriage is required for a happy life is just absolutely sexist, awful and plain wrong.    Gottlieb's article (and now book) speaks to women's settling as a natural thing.  This is true-- women constantly settle-- but only because societal conditioning has reinforced the idea that girls should "play nice" and "get along," which goes hand in hand with compromise and settling. (As you notice, there are few articles advising men to just settle. In fact, it's generally quite the opposite-- most men's magazine articles speak to how to get the girl of your dreams (aka, that hot chick at the bar) and how to never to take no for an answer).

Then there's the idea that all individuals want marriage.  As Gottlieb says, "And all I can say is, if you say you're not worried [about getting married], either you're in denial or you're lying."  Oh, if only it were that simple.  See, there are these things called open relationships, nontraditional relationships, polyamorous relationships, asexuality, not married by default (aka, being gay and not living in a kick-ass state) and just plain not interested in being married.  While I could march out some evidence that such relationships exist and compare them to your average heterosexual marriage, I have a better idea: let's just take people at their word when they say they don't want to be married.  And better yet, if they are over 30, let's just let them live their lives the way they want to and not fall into the cultural mindset that they should somehow be pitied or congratulated for their bravery.

Furthermore, when someone (a woman, according to Gottlieb) says that she doesn't want to get married (either by choice or because she hasn't met the right person), let's not shove our own cultural expectations down their throats.   

Next tirade goes to violence against women.  Oh yes, I know, domestic violence and intimate partner violence can be against men as well-- and it does not receive nearly as much attention as it should.  The reason why I have framed my tirade as violence against women is because Gottlieb's article focuses on why women should settle, which falls in perfectly with a batter's comment that the abused isn't good enough to find someone else-- he's all that she'll have.  Plus, Gottlieb's comments also fall into the idea that being with a man (regardless of the quality) is still better than no man at all.  From my years of domestic violence advocacy, I can attest that both lines of thinking are alive and well, and many battered women take them to heart. 

So let me say this:  even though I think Gottlieb's premise is awful, if you are going to settle, just make sure you settle for someone who at least respects you as a person, does not threaten or intimidate you in any way and allows you the independence required to live your own life with dignity. 

But if you want to be like me, you'll adopt the following saying:  I would rather be by myself in the company of friends than be in a relationship where I'm miserable and afraid to go to home. See Ms. Gottlieb?  I'm a woman close to 30 who is not in denial or lying to myself-- I truly understand my options and I choose the option of being happy.  Once again, yay feminism for telling the world that it's bad to be in an unhealthy relationship!

There's so much more to write, including how she completely disregards queer folks, but it's too late to keep writing.  Post to be continued! 

Abort!

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
healthcare.jpgJoe Lieberman (I-CT) reported that he would not support the health care bill.  And now Democratic leaders are looking for others to pass the bill.

Oh dear. 

Actually, not that's not the big piece of news.  This bill shouldn't go through-- it doesn't do anything.  No public option= no better health care for the person who is now unemployed, without health insurance and without money to pay for decent health insurance.  (And no, this person is not Average Joe, it is Average Jane, as the majority of unemployed and uninsured are young women of color). 

To me the biggest piece of news is that in an effort to try to get enough votes to pass the health care bill, Democratic leaders offered a compromise on abortion rights, hoping to get votes from Sen. Nelson (the same guy who wrote and sponsored that Nelson-Hatch Amendment) and Sen. Casey (one of the supporters of the Nelson-Hatch Amendment). 

I'm already dismayed at Democratic leadership, but come on folks, this is an all-time low.  First you allow the Stupak Amendment to pass the house (thanks Nancy Pelosi!).  Then you barely scrape up enough votes to table the Nelson-Hatch Amendment.  Now this. 

I would insert some sort of dark humored abortion joke here about exercising my choice to abort the Democratic Party from my voter registration card, but that's too obvious-- just like the Democrats' willingness to throw us all under the bus.  


Nelson-Hatch Amendment Tabled (Defeated)

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)
Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch amendment, effectively killing the Amendment.  The vote was 54:45, which was not the landslide victory everyone reported.  Although Democrats only needed 51 votes to defeat the Amendment, I think it's a sad state that they only managed to get 3 others to vote for tabling the amendment.  Two of those votes were from Republicans, Snow and Collins (both from Maine).  

It should also be noted that several Democrats voted against tabling the Amendment and spoke in favor of the amendment during the floor debate.  Senator Casey (D-Pa) comes to mind with his awful 10 minute speech about why the Nelson-Hatch amendment was such a wonderful thing and why we should all be sucking Hatch's dick.  

You can see who voted for and against tabling (remember, for tabling= good) here.

But, if you can't wait to click and see, here's the down and dirty on the Democrats who were fine with Nelson-Hatch Amendment and voted against tabling:

Bayh (IN)
my mind, my body, my choice.jpgCasey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Kauffman (DE)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)

Special thanks to those Democratic Senators who made some brilliant and impassioned arguments on the floor:

Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
and Feinstein (CA) (who did not become involved until the very end, but as the saying goes "better late than never")

Of course, as much as I liked the fact that these particular senators raised good arguments, I am still disappointed that no one came out against the Hyde Amendment.  The rhetoric from both sides of the debate was that the Hyde Amendment is well settled policy.  Hmm, that's interesting: the Hyde Amendment was particularly controversial in 1977, and many organizations think the Hyde Amendment is horrible policy.  Where is this idea that it is well settled policy? 

And let me add one final thought: the Democrats have a super-majority.  There is no reason why the party should be bowing to Republican or conservative rhetoric.  Oh, but wait, I forgot-- there are lots of Democrats now that side with Republicans.  Does anyone else see a mythical creature emerging-- one with a donkey's head and an elephant's behind?    

For those of you who don't know, there has been some major movement around healthcare reform to further limit abortion rights. 

Before I start, a quick history lesson:
Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, in which the Supreme Court held that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes 'viable.'"  This case remains one of the most controversial cases to date.  Since Roe v. Wade the Court's reasoning has been severely warped and limited with further cases such as Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007 (upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, an Act that was not grounded in scientific reasoning and opposed by the vast majority of medical and scientific organizations). 

In 1977, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for a woman's abortion.  This Amendment unfairly punished those women who were recipients of welfare. Women's rights activists and poverty/welfare activists were furious. 

Despite the Hyde Amendment, a few states expanded their state Medicare coverage to cover the cost of an abortion.  Out of these states, some will fund any elective abortion, while others will only pay for an abortion if pregnancy resulted from rape or if the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman.   

In addition, many private health insurance companies provide coverage for abortions and abortion-related healthcare, including post-operation medications and examinations.  Kaiser-Permanente is one of the largest health insurance companies to provide comprehensive health insurance coverage for women-- they are also one of the largest powerhouses to lobby federal government to prevent setbacks for women's rights.  Yes, it might be driven by profit for them, but I'm excited to see that the pro-choice movement has at least one huge insurance company to fund these campaigns.

pro-choice buttons.jpg 

Now onto current events:
The heatlhcare reform debate in the House and Senate is being undermined by stupid Democrats.  First, there was the Stupak Amendment that passed the House.  The Stupak Amendment barred any insurance plan purchased with government subsidies from covering abortions.  Essentially, this would prohibit any woman from getting her abortion covered by insurance.  This takes the Hyde Amendment to a whole new level! 

Not only is Representative Stupak a Democrat, but Nancy Pelosi, the first woman Speaker of the House, caved in and voted in support of the amendment to save the healthcare reform bill.  That rings a 10 on my what-the-fuck scale. 

But that's not the end.  Senator Nelson (D-Nebraska) has now proposed a Senate Amendment that is identical to the Stupak Amendment.  And guess who he partnered with to create such a gem of a legislation-- our old friend, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the same Republican Senator who used the Senate Finance Committee in early November to pass a bill that would effectively restore $50 million for abstinence-only education.

That's it-- I've had it with the Democrats in office.  I know I say this often, but I really don't see any difference now between the Republicans and Democrats in office.   The only reason I have caved and voted Democrat in presidential elections is to protect a woman's right to choose.  But now I can't even rely on that.  Fuck, even our President spoke about healthcare in such ambiguous terms so as to not make any public statement for or against abortion rights.  I just can't deal with this. 

Next election, I refuse to vote Democrat.  As someone who has always campaigned for presidential candidates (and yes, I phone banked for Kerry and then for Hillary and then for Obama), I refuse, REFUSE, to help elect another Democrat to office.  The only issue I will fight for is no longer on their radar.

I urge you to take action to stop the Nelson-Hatch Amendment.  Let's not undermine women's healthcare more than we already have!  Click here to sign a petition and contact your Senators! The vote is TOMORROW, Tuesday, December 8, 2009, so act quickly!

P.S. I would have put a link to a NY Times article about the Nelson-Hatch Amendment, but for some reason they haven't published a story on it yet.  Add tag for media bias.    
 


About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries in the feminism category.

elections is the previous category.

From here to revolution is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.