You wouldn't go to a Catholic hospital to have an abortion but what if you went to a Catholic hospital and one was needed in order to save your life?
A women in Michigan went to the only hospital within 30 miles of after her water broke while in the eighteenth week of her pregnancy. She was given Tylenol and sent home. She went in a second time and though she was in intense pain and bleeding the hospital sent her home again. It was not until the third visit, when she began a premature labor did the hospital step in and treat her. By that point the women had two acute infections and was in extreme pain. She delivered a premature baby in the breech position that lived for only two and a half hours.
Medical experts who have reviewed the case have determined that the fetus had virtually no chance of survival and that this would have been apparent on her initial visit to the hospital. They also said that in these such circumstances doctors usually induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the mother’s chances of infection.
This women is Tamesha Means and the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on her behalf. The suit alleges that the hospital did not tell Means that her fetus was doomed, nor that inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy was the only way to reduce the risk of a dangerous infection that could cost her her own life as well. Why is the ACLU suing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instead of the hospital where the negligence occurred? It is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and their “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services requires Catholic hospitals to avoid abortion or referrals, “even when doing so places a woman’s health or life at risk.” Catholic hospitals that disobey can expect to at the very least be dropped from their religious affiliation.
One such recent example is St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. In 2010, the hospital was stripped of its affiliation with the church after doctors performed an abortion on a woman in her first tri-mester because it was necessary to save her life. She had pulmonary hypertension and nearly 100% chance of killing her had she continued her pregnancy.
The senior Nun who gave the final okay for the termination was excommunicated by the local bishop.Sister Margaret McBride believed that the termination was warranted given that there are some circumstances where procedures that endanger the fetus are allowed to save the mothers life. Apparently, pulmonary hypertension and near certain death for the mother doesn't fall into this category.
What is terrifying is that the position of the church in this life and death situation would have been to let both the mother and her 11 week old fetus die. Just as if Means had ended up losing her life to the infections that ravaged her body after being sent home from the hospital. From the article cited above: "They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."
In this regard, hospitals with religious affiliations are not institutions that are bound to the basic medical principles such as saving the patients life regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. Being a pregnant women is more than a liability in a Catholic Hospital and this isn't the first such case to bring that issue to the forefront of the "abortion" debate. In October 2012, Savita Halappanavar began miscarrying her 17 week old fetus in Ireland and was admitted to the hospital. Halappanavar repeatedly asked for an abortion but was informed that the Catholic hospital she was being treated in would not intervene in the miscarriage as long as the was a heartbeat. They would not perform a life saving abortion and Halappanavar died from sepsis a week after she was admitted to the hospital.
If hospitals cannot practice medicine because of their religious affiliation than they should not be allowed to exist. Medical treatment centers need to practice medicine regardless of the religious beliefs held by the bishops or board members. These patients turned to these institutions with the belief that their lives would be respected, their wounds would be treated, that doctors would be making decisions about their health. In the instance of Savita Halappanavar, I don't think it is a stretch to say that this women was killed by the very people who were supposed to treat her. She was forced to carry a dying, non-viable fetus while she laid in bed being poisoned by her own body. The women in Phoenix who had a near certain fatal diagnosis had the hospital not removed the fetus from her body- well,the women who gave the okay was excommunicated. Priests involved in sexual abuse scandals, priest who have been found GUILTY of sexual abuse of children have not been excommunicated but this Nun who allowed a life saving abortion was. Hypocritical and disgusting. The worth of women in the church is made clear over and over again. Women are dispensable, they should die if it means they need a fetus removed in order to live. They should suffer in order for a fetus to...what? Perish with "dignity?"
Whether the ACLU succeeds in suing the Catholic bishops or not, this case brings the issue into the ever raging abortion debate. Is it not the right of women to live first? How many more stories like this need to happen? How many more times do women have to put their lives on the line for the sake of an unborn and often doomed fetus? These women did not want abortions while the possibility of "life" existed. These women wanted to carry their pregnancies to term and what kind of society has medical facilities that will risk a patients life for the so-called "beliefs" of the ones who operate it?
Monday, December 9, 2013
Sunday, December 1, 2013
British Social Services Forces C-Section on Italian Women and Takes Child into Custody
If you needed any more reason to be weary of your rights as a pregnant women the UK has given us a starling and horrifying example.
In August 2012, an Italian women was given a forced c-section and had her child removed by British social services after having a panic attack while in the country for a business trip. The women called the Police after suffering a panic attack, apparently because she could not find the passports for her other two children who were with her mother in Italy. The police came to the women's hotel and took her into custody after speaking with her mother on the phone who indicated she had bi-polar but was not currently taking medication.
The police told the mother that they were taking her to the hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. They brought her to a mental hospital and though she said she wanted to go back to her hotel, she was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that she must stay in the hospital. After five weeks she was told that she couldn't eat breakfast that morning and then was forcibly sedated and put through a cesarean section. She later woke up in a different hospital and was informed that her child had been delivered by c-section. She later learned that a high court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers of Essex permission to arrange for the child to be delivered. Later on she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.
The women, back in Italy, immediately resumed taking her medication and began the process of battling for the return of her daughter. She returned to the UK in February to regain custody of her daughter. The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery, the reason? The judge said that while she indeed seemed impressively "articulate" he could not risk a failure to maintain her medication in the future and therefore he ruled that the child must be placed for adoption.
Earlier in 2013, her American husband, who she is amicably separated from and who is the father of her eldest daughter- asked that the baby be sent to Los Angeles to live with his sister. The sister was described by her US lawyer as “a rock”. Because, however, the sister is not a blood relative of the Italian women she is not considered a relative of the baby.
When I first saw this story I figured it was a spoof. I thought, surely this is from the Onion or another parody website, right? Nope. I googled the case and many news outlets were running the story, it was indeed real life. This is an actual instance where the State forced a women to give birth while unconscious through an invasive procedure without her knowledge and or consent for the good of the BABY! The authorities then refused to give her her own child back. They are still refusing to give her her daughter back.
There are a number of disturbing things in this case besides the actual unprecedented procedure. Primarily the fact that she was taken into custody in the first place and held hostage in a psychiatric facility for over a month. Everything I read stated that she received appointed legal counsel only after the forced c-section of her daughter and that was at a hearing where she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her daughter. The case has been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.
No capacity to instruct lawyers? A panic attack does not deem you incapable of having rights.
John Hemming, MP (Member of Parliament) who is advocating more openness in family court and raising this case in Parliament stated “I think this has a fair chance of being the worst case of human-rights abuse I’ve ever seen. She wasn’t treated as a human being.”
No, she was not treated as a human being and as more details from the case become public, I am weary to think of what other abuses may have taken place. Argue anyway you'd like- but pregnant women or mothers with mental health issues are not treated as human beings. Yes, the welfare of the children is important but it is truly inhumane to drug a women in order to extract the fetus from her womb and then then take custody of the child.
Obviously the entire story has not yet been told, but one thing is absolutely certain- any women with any mental illness has to be extremely cautious when having or considering having children. If you take medication you risk certain birth defects and or fetal abnormalities which could be interpreted as endangering your child and if you do not take medication you can be certain that your untreated mental illness will be held against you. Women with mental health issues face double discrimination when carrying a child. There are those that would advocate terminating pregnancies of women with bi-polar and other depressive disorders, regardless of the desires of the women.
This case is one of my worst nightmares. As a women with mental illness I consider the ramifications of child bearing often and I struggle with the knowledge that being a functional, well-adjusted member of society may very well equal never procreating. The medications that I take daily are not approved for pregnant women and there are VERY few that are. I can't imagine that every women on medication feels the same way, what if they want to have children, don't they have that right? That's why social services or government intervention in birthing is so frightening. This Italian women already has two children, she is already a mother and a handful of strangers in a foreign country decided to knock her unconscious, steal her baby and claim that it was in the best interest of this child who hadn't even been born yet.
Mental illness holds its own stigma and in a society where pregnant women are already stripped of their own personal rights I wonder sometimes why so many women take the risk. In this case the State literally took over a women's body and removed the child from her womb while she was unconscious. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “At first blush this is dystopian science-fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares.” There is simply no justification for that.
In August 2012, an Italian women was given a forced c-section and had her child removed by British social services after having a panic attack while in the country for a business trip. The women called the Police after suffering a panic attack, apparently because she could not find the passports for her other two children who were with her mother in Italy. The police came to the women's hotel and took her into custody after speaking with her mother on the phone who indicated she had bi-polar but was not currently taking medication.
The police told the mother that they were taking her to the hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. They brought her to a mental hospital and though she said she wanted to go back to her hotel, she was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that she must stay in the hospital. After five weeks she was told that she couldn't eat breakfast that morning and then was forcibly sedated and put through a cesarean section. She later woke up in a different hospital and was informed that her child had been delivered by c-section. She later learned that a high court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers of Essex permission to arrange for the child to be delivered. Later on she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.
The women, back in Italy, immediately resumed taking her medication and began the process of battling for the return of her daughter. She returned to the UK in February to regain custody of her daughter. The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery, the reason? The judge said that while she indeed seemed impressively "articulate" he could not risk a failure to maintain her medication in the future and therefore he ruled that the child must be placed for adoption.
Earlier in 2013, her American husband, who she is amicably separated from and who is the father of her eldest daughter- asked that the baby be sent to Los Angeles to live with his sister. The sister was described by her US lawyer as “a rock”. Because, however, the sister is not a blood relative of the Italian women she is not considered a relative of the baby.
When I first saw this story I figured it was a spoof. I thought, surely this is from the Onion or another parody website, right? Nope. I googled the case and many news outlets were running the story, it was indeed real life. This is an actual instance where the State forced a women to give birth while unconscious through an invasive procedure without her knowledge and or consent for the good of the BABY! The authorities then refused to give her her own child back. They are still refusing to give her her daughter back.
There are a number of disturbing things in this case besides the actual unprecedented procedure. Primarily the fact that she was taken into custody in the first place and held hostage in a psychiatric facility for over a month. Everything I read stated that she received appointed legal counsel only after the forced c-section of her daughter and that was at a hearing where she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her daughter. The case has been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.
No capacity to instruct lawyers? A panic attack does not deem you incapable of having rights.
John Hemming, MP (Member of Parliament) who is advocating more openness in family court and raising this case in Parliament stated “I think this has a fair chance of being the worst case of human-rights abuse I’ve ever seen. She wasn’t treated as a human being.”
No, she was not treated as a human being and as more details from the case become public, I am weary to think of what other abuses may have taken place. Argue anyway you'd like- but pregnant women or mothers with mental health issues are not treated as human beings. Yes, the welfare of the children is important but it is truly inhumane to drug a women in order to extract the fetus from her womb and then then take custody of the child.
Obviously the entire story has not yet been told, but one thing is absolutely certain- any women with any mental illness has to be extremely cautious when having or considering having children. If you take medication you risk certain birth defects and or fetal abnormalities which could be interpreted as endangering your child and if you do not take medication you can be certain that your untreated mental illness will be held against you. Women with mental health issues face double discrimination when carrying a child. There are those that would advocate terminating pregnancies of women with bi-polar and other depressive disorders, regardless of the desires of the women.
This case is one of my worst nightmares. As a women with mental illness I consider the ramifications of child bearing often and I struggle with the knowledge that being a functional, well-adjusted member of society may very well equal never procreating. The medications that I take daily are not approved for pregnant women and there are VERY few that are. I can't imagine that every women on medication feels the same way, what if they want to have children, don't they have that right? That's why social services or government intervention in birthing is so frightening. This Italian women already has two children, she is already a mother and a handful of strangers in a foreign country decided to knock her unconscious, steal her baby and claim that it was in the best interest of this child who hadn't even been born yet.
Mental illness holds its own stigma and in a society where pregnant women are already stripped of their own personal rights I wonder sometimes why so many women take the risk. In this case the State literally took over a women's body and removed the child from her womb while she was unconscious. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “At first blush this is dystopian science-fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares.” There is simply no justification for that.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
20 Week Abortion Ban Defeated in New Mexico
The 20 week abortion ban in Albuquerque, New Mexico was voted down this past Tuesday in a significant victory for women's health and the continuing fight for reproductive freedom. The proposed ban was the first of its kind to challenge abortion laws on a municipal level rather than on the typical state level. Operation Rescue, an extremely well known and radical anti-choice organization is said to have spent millions of dollars on this new tactic to prevent women from seeking late-term abortions. Albuquerque is home to one of the only abortion clinics in the country that provides abortion services throughout the third trimester and it is frequently women from other states that have to travel to New Mexico in order to utilize this otherwise inaccessible procedure.
The voting results were 45 percent in support of and 55 percent against, the participation rate in the vote was approximately 25% of all registered voters.
The proposed ban was led by Bud and Tara Shaver, Christian missionaries and extreme antiabortion activists. This couple moved from Kansas to New Mexico to try and shut down the Southwestern Women’s Options clinic, one of two late-term abortion providers in the region. Tara Shaver stated: "When we moved here three years ago, our goal was just to bring awareness to what was happening here. This is a little deviation from that. We're going to move forward and keep focusing on that and keep strengthening our effort in the streets." LA TIMES
The ordinance did not include an exception in the case of rape or incest; only in the case of preserving the mothers life. It was in part due to the extreme nature of the bill that many people ending up voting against it.
The voting results were 45 percent in support of and 55 percent against, the participation rate in the vote was approximately 25% of all registered voters.
The proposed ban was led by Bud and Tara Shaver, Christian missionaries and extreme antiabortion activists. This couple moved from Kansas to New Mexico to try and shut down the Southwestern Women’s Options clinic, one of two late-term abortion providers in the region. Tara Shaver stated: "When we moved here three years ago, our goal was just to bring awareness to what was happening here. This is a little deviation from that. We're going to move forward and keep focusing on that and keep strengthening our effort in the streets." LA TIMES
The ordinance did not include an exception in the case of rape or incest; only in the case of preserving the mothers life. It was in part due to the extreme nature of the bill that many people ending up voting against it.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Real Art Ways: AFTER TILLER
I was finally able to view the much anticipated documentary by Martha Shane and Lana Wilson, After Tiller. The documentary was released September 20th, but with limited showings in limited cities. I hoped that the film would come close enough to Western Ma. for me to make the trip. Luckily REAL ART WAYS CINEMA in Hartford, CT will be showing After Tiller until Thursday, Nov.14th. I strongly encourage everyone to to go and view this film.
The premise behind After Tiller is a behind the scenes look centering around the four remaining late-term abortion doctors left in the United States after George Tiller was murdered. Dr. Tiller was targeted by anti-abortion zealots, specifically the nationally known organization Operation Rescue for much of his career.He was shot five times in 1993 by an anti-abortion extremist and was murdered with a single gun shot to the forehead while serving as an usher in church in 2009 in Wichita, Kansas. All four doctors, Susan Robinson, Shelly Sella, Leroy Carhart and Warren Hern knew Tiller as a colleague, mentor and friend.
While all of the Doctors are well spoken and compelling, Susan Robinson comes across as especially poignant and relatable. When she speaks to her motivation for providing late-term abortions she says, "What really got me interested was when they started shooting doctors." She goes on to say that there are two possible reactions when dealing with bullies, shying away and becoming quiet or sticking your neck out and fighting back, she aligns herself with the latter option. It is Dr. Robinson who utters some of the films simplest and most memorable quotes such as, "Of course you don't want an abortion, nobody wants an abortion" and my personal favorite, "You have choices, they all suck."
The documentary aims to make no other point than to demonstrate the complex reality behind third trimester abortions. The women are not monsters who were too lazy to obtain a first or second trimester abortion. There are very real variables which come in to play with third trimester abortions such as fetal anomalies, economic and or geographic factors and the mental and physical well being of the mother. The film drives home the point that these Doctors are all people, each patient has different circumstance and no single law or judge can determine what "should" happen to women, their offspring and their families. While the documentary is certainly not opposed to anyone changing their mind on the subject matter- that clearly isn't the goal of the film. Is it unbiased? No, it isn't. The film asks at a base level that you hold your judgement and condemnation at bay, view women as the most important human beings first and look at each circumstance on an individual level- in return After Tiller presents you with real women and real stories that are both complex and heart breaking.
One women in just such a situation offers this sentiment: "It's guilt no matter which way you go. Guilt if you go ahead and do what we're doing or if you bring them into this world and then he doesn't have any quality of life." After Tiller asks that you let the women and the doctors decide the impossible and hope you aren't ever put in the same situation. After Tiller demonstrates the reality that there are those who are put in that situation every day. Unfortunately, there are and will continue to be women who find out that a very wanted pregnancy is going to end in a death and I think they should have the respect and dignity afforded to them to dictate the circumstance of that death. Will there always be a doctor to safely and legally guide them through the process? There are many who hope not but as Dr. Leroy Carhart states in the film, "If I just give up and stop doing anything after twenty weeks some women may get desperate and do things on their own, this is something that needs to be done."
After Tiller will be playing in Hartford CT. until Nov.14th and general admission is $10. For more information and screenings at other locations visit After Tiller
The premise behind After Tiller is a behind the scenes look centering around the four remaining late-term abortion doctors left in the United States after George Tiller was murdered. Dr. Tiller was targeted by anti-abortion zealots, specifically the nationally known organization Operation Rescue for much of his career.He was shot five times in 1993 by an anti-abortion extremist and was murdered with a single gun shot to the forehead while serving as an usher in church in 2009 in Wichita, Kansas. All four doctors, Susan Robinson, Shelly Sella, Leroy Carhart and Warren Hern knew Tiller as a colleague, mentor and friend.
While all of the Doctors are well spoken and compelling, Susan Robinson comes across as especially poignant and relatable. When she speaks to her motivation for providing late-term abortions she says, "What really got me interested was when they started shooting doctors." She goes on to say that there are two possible reactions when dealing with bullies, shying away and becoming quiet or sticking your neck out and fighting back, she aligns herself with the latter option. It is Dr. Robinson who utters some of the films simplest and most memorable quotes such as, "Of course you don't want an abortion, nobody wants an abortion" and my personal favorite, "You have choices, they all suck."
The documentary aims to make no other point than to demonstrate the complex reality behind third trimester abortions. The women are not monsters who were too lazy to obtain a first or second trimester abortion. There are very real variables which come in to play with third trimester abortions such as fetal anomalies, economic and or geographic factors and the mental and physical well being of the mother. The film drives home the point that these Doctors are all people, each patient has different circumstance and no single law or judge can determine what "should" happen to women, their offspring and their families. While the documentary is certainly not opposed to anyone changing their mind on the subject matter- that clearly isn't the goal of the film. Is it unbiased? No, it isn't. The film asks at a base level that you hold your judgement and condemnation at bay, view women as the most important human beings first and look at each circumstance on an individual level- in return After Tiller presents you with real women and real stories that are both complex and heart breaking.
One women in just such a situation offers this sentiment: "It's guilt no matter which way you go. Guilt if you go ahead and do what we're doing or if you bring them into this world and then he doesn't have any quality of life." After Tiller asks that you let the women and the doctors decide the impossible and hope you aren't ever put in the same situation. After Tiller demonstrates the reality that there are those who are put in that situation every day. Unfortunately, there are and will continue to be women who find out that a very wanted pregnancy is going to end in a death and I think they should have the respect and dignity afforded to them to dictate the circumstance of that death. Will there always be a doctor to safely and legally guide them through the process? There are many who hope not but as Dr. Leroy Carhart states in the film, "If I just give up and stop doing anything after twenty weeks some women may get desperate and do things on their own, this is something that needs to be done."
After Tiller will be playing in Hartford CT. until Nov.14th and general admission is $10. For more information and screenings at other locations visit After Tiller
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Where You Live=How Many Rights You Have
The Texas legislature wasted no time in overturning a Federal Judges decision to rule an unnecessary requirement of all abortion Doctors being granted admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles unconstitutional.
On Monday, Oct. 28th, U.S. Judge Lee Yeakel issued a ruling that requiring Doctors to hold admitting privileges at a hospital no less than 30 miles from each clinic "places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her." Hospitals are not required to grant any Doctors admitting privileges and many have requirements attached that prevent abortion doctors from qualifying. Many Doctors who perform abortions in Texas fly in from out of state and seldom admit patients to local hospitals because it is rarely necessary to do so. In the initial decision, Judge Yeakel noted that requiring admitting privileges had no bearing on safety because in the rare event of an emergency, patients will be rushed to the nearest hospital and treated the same way regardless.
The three judge circuit court in New Orleans, cited a Supreme Court statement in an earlier abortion case that if a regulation serves a valid purpose, the fact that it has “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it.
But seeing as though the regulation itself does nothing BUT cause undue burden on women seeking abortion services the very core of Roe. V. Wade is being challenged. If Doctors cannot receive admitting privileges because hospitals can deny them without any legitimate reason but at the same time those hospitals must admit any patients that need emergency services due to an abortion complication it's pretty obvious that the regulation is only in place to force abortion clinics to close their doors. How can an entirely needless regulation that in essences slams the door to an accessible abortion for many women NOT create undue burden?
President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Cecile Richards stated: "This fight is far from over. This restriction clearly violates Texas women's constitutional rights by drastically reducing access to safe and legal abortion statewide."
The admitting privileges law can take full effect "temporarily" until a complete hearing can be held, likely to occur in early January 2014. In the meantime as usual, the effects will be felt by the women- all who deserve the privacy and dignity of making their own decisions about their own bodies and their own lives.
On Monday, Oct. 28th, U.S. Judge Lee Yeakel issued a ruling that requiring Doctors to hold admitting privileges at a hospital no less than 30 miles from each clinic "places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her." Hospitals are not required to grant any Doctors admitting privileges and many have requirements attached that prevent abortion doctors from qualifying. Many Doctors who perform abortions in Texas fly in from out of state and seldom admit patients to local hospitals because it is rarely necessary to do so. In the initial decision, Judge Yeakel noted that requiring admitting privileges had no bearing on safety because in the rare event of an emergency, patients will be rushed to the nearest hospital and treated the same way regardless.
The three judge circuit court in New Orleans, cited a Supreme Court statement in an earlier abortion case that if a regulation serves a valid purpose, the fact that it has “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it.
But seeing as though the regulation itself does nothing BUT cause undue burden on women seeking abortion services the very core of Roe. V. Wade is being challenged. If Doctors cannot receive admitting privileges because hospitals can deny them without any legitimate reason but at the same time those hospitals must admit any patients that need emergency services due to an abortion complication it's pretty obvious that the regulation is only in place to force abortion clinics to close their doors. How can an entirely needless regulation that in essences slams the door to an accessible abortion for many women NOT create undue burden?
President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Cecile Richards stated: "This fight is far from over. This restriction clearly violates Texas women's constitutional rights by drastically reducing access to safe and legal abortion statewide."
The admitting privileges law can take full effect "temporarily" until a complete hearing can be held, likely to occur in early January 2014. In the meantime as usual, the effects will be felt by the women- all who deserve the privacy and dignity of making their own decisions about their own bodies and their own lives.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
The Good and the Bad in Texas
In a partial victory for Texas women, a federal Judge struck down parts of what will be the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.
Most of the restrictions were scheduled to begin Oct.29th. The part of the law that was struck down was the requirement that all clinic doctors obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. This is a problem as many Doctors who provide abortion services are from out of state and admit so few patients that they cannot meet the requirements necessary to obtain admitting privileges. If the judge had not ruled that the law was unconstitutional then clinics without these privileges would have had to shut down as of today.
Judge Lee Yeakel of United States District Court stated that "the act’s admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
The restrictions on Medical Abortions using the drugs mifeprex and misoprostol were upheld. The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of these drugs in much higher doses than have been found to be necessary in practice. Medical Abortions were approved through the FDA up to 7 weeks in 2000 but the lower and more accepted doses are deemed safe by Doctors up through 9 weeks. Usually patients go to a clinic where they are administered the first pills and given instructions and then sent home to take the second pill the following day. Patients must then go back for a follow up visit within a two week period. The Judge ruled that the requirement of the the earlier regiment does not pose an unconstitutional burden but that the later regimen could be accepted if deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. Additional, and largely unnecessary visits are required in Texas.
Lastly, the law passed in Texas included a requirement that all clinics meet the standards set for surgical ambulatory centers. That part of the law was not challenged in this particular case and is set to take effect in September 2014. Only six abortion providers in Texas currently operate as ambulatory surgical centers. Many clinics would be unable to afford the costly and unnecessary upgrades. These include things like widening the hallways and entrances and having temperature controls in every room.
While the ruling will most likely be appealed (in fact the attorney general has already called for an emergency appeal), the fact that one federal judge has declared the admitting privileges unconstitutional is a good sign. Federal judges have issued temporary injunctions against similar laws requiring admitting privileges in Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama, the Texas law however,is the first case to get a final written decision from a district court. The appeal is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme court.
Most of the restrictions were scheduled to begin Oct.29th. The part of the law that was struck down was the requirement that all clinic doctors obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. This is a problem as many Doctors who provide abortion services are from out of state and admit so few patients that they cannot meet the requirements necessary to obtain admitting privileges. If the judge had not ruled that the law was unconstitutional then clinics without these privileges would have had to shut down as of today.
Judge Lee Yeakel of United States District Court stated that "the act’s admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
The restrictions on Medical Abortions using the drugs mifeprex and misoprostol were upheld. The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of these drugs in much higher doses than have been found to be necessary in practice. Medical Abortions were approved through the FDA up to 7 weeks in 2000 but the lower and more accepted doses are deemed safe by Doctors up through 9 weeks. Usually patients go to a clinic where they are administered the first pills and given instructions and then sent home to take the second pill the following day. Patients must then go back for a follow up visit within a two week period. The Judge ruled that the requirement of the the earlier regiment does not pose an unconstitutional burden but that the later regimen could be accepted if deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. Additional, and largely unnecessary visits are required in Texas.
Lastly, the law passed in Texas included a requirement that all clinics meet the standards set for surgical ambulatory centers. That part of the law was not challenged in this particular case and is set to take effect in September 2014. Only six abortion providers in Texas currently operate as ambulatory surgical centers. Many clinics would be unable to afford the costly and unnecessary upgrades. These include things like widening the hallways and entrances and having temperature controls in every room.
While the ruling will most likely be appealed (in fact the attorney general has already called for an emergency appeal), the fact that one federal judge has declared the admitting privileges unconstitutional is a good sign. Federal judges have issued temporary injunctions against similar laws requiring admitting privileges in Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama, the Texas law however,is the first case to get a final written decision from a district court. The appeal is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme court.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Why The Buffer Zone Works for Everyone
The buffer zone law in Massachusetts mandates that anti-choice protesters stay at least 35-feet away from the entrances to abortion clinics. In some cases the buffer zone starts at the parking lot entrance and extends 35 feet from there. Massachusetts clinics include Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts health centers in Springfield, Worcester, and Boston. As recently as January of this year, the supreme court upheld the law in court- however, it was announced in June that the supreme court would hear arguments that challenge the constitutionality of the buffer zone law.
The argument from the anti-choice side is largely based on their interpretation of the First Amendment- freedom of speech. In January, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, saying it protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees "without offending the First Amendment rights of others." The court later announced plans to review the Massachusetts law which has already sustained a lengthy legal fight throughout its history. Enacted in 2007 the Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone law changed the 2000 law, which provided for an 18 feet fixed buffer zone and six feet floating buffer zone. In 2000, the law was upheld based on the fact that while the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, it does not compel that one has to be granted an audience. Thus, laws that allow people to have safe space to not be harassed are considered constitutional.
Anti-choice protesters argue that they are unfairly kept from speaking with or handing literature to individuals entering the clinics. They want to be able to approach the women entering these clinics and "counsel" them from making the wrong decisions. The assumption is that the people entering the clinic are doing so because they have been lied to or coerced in some way into thinking their only option is to terminate their pregnancy. The protesters in turn want to "save" these women.
So why is the buffer zone so important to uphold?
One obvious answer is that the buffer zone forces a physical separation between patients and protesters so that patients are not accosted while entering the clinics. Clinic employees can enter their workplace without being harassed. It allows women to exercise their legal right to obtain an abortion with some amount of dignity. Protesters can still be close to the clinics and carry out their sign holding, shouting, praying etc... It is a compromise that benefits both sides. The buffer zone doesn't go so far as to grant women their right to privacy but it does but a precedent into place that ensures (as much as possible) that they can safely enter the premises.
Anti-choice protesters are not all extremists; of course handing out rubber toy fetuses to anyone walking by is "extreme" to me but I wouldn't put it in the same category as anti-choice terrorists who are intent on bombing clinics and shooting clinic employees. Massachusetts knows anti-choice extremists very well. In 1994, 22 year-old John Silva entered the Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline and opened fire. The receptionist on duty, 25 year-old Shannon Lowney, was killed. Salvi killed one other receptionist at a nearby clinic and in total wounded five others. He was convicted of the killings and later committed suicide in prison.
Anti-choice protesters are not all violent but the buffer zone provides some level of protection for the women legally entitled to their right to privacy when obtaining medical care. Which persons rights are being more violated? The individual with no business to conduct choosing to picket, protest and harass perfect strangers or the individual exercising their legal right to obtain a legal procedure? Not to mention that protestors are already violating the patients right to privacy by attempting to interfere in the first place.
In what other scenarios do individuals have to be subjected to harassment when receiving medical attention? Are there protestors outside of Hospitals? OBGYN's? Plastic Surgeons offices? No, the instance of abortion is one that is still so deeply stigmatized in our society that there MUST be laws such as the buffer zone in place to put at the VERY LEAST some physical distance between protestors and patients. Mind your own business anti-choice zealots- and if you really can't do that at least stay on the other side of the street.
The argument from the anti-choice side is largely based on their interpretation of the First Amendment- freedom of speech. In January, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, saying it protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees "without offending the First Amendment rights of others." The court later announced plans to review the Massachusetts law which has already sustained a lengthy legal fight throughout its history. Enacted in 2007 the Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone law changed the 2000 law, which provided for an 18 feet fixed buffer zone and six feet floating buffer zone. In 2000, the law was upheld based on the fact that while the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, it does not compel that one has to be granted an audience. Thus, laws that allow people to have safe space to not be harassed are considered constitutional.
Anti-choice protesters argue that they are unfairly kept from speaking with or handing literature to individuals entering the clinics. They want to be able to approach the women entering these clinics and "counsel" them from making the wrong decisions. The assumption is that the people entering the clinic are doing so because they have been lied to or coerced in some way into thinking their only option is to terminate their pregnancy. The protesters in turn want to "save" these women.
So why is the buffer zone so important to uphold?
One obvious answer is that the buffer zone forces a physical separation between patients and protesters so that patients are not accosted while entering the clinics. Clinic employees can enter their workplace without being harassed. It allows women to exercise their legal right to obtain an abortion with some amount of dignity. Protesters can still be close to the clinics and carry out their sign holding, shouting, praying etc... It is a compromise that benefits both sides. The buffer zone doesn't go so far as to grant women their right to privacy but it does but a precedent into place that ensures (as much as possible) that they can safely enter the premises.
Anti-choice protesters are not all extremists; of course handing out rubber toy fetuses to anyone walking by is "extreme" to me but I wouldn't put it in the same category as anti-choice terrorists who are intent on bombing clinics and shooting clinic employees. Massachusetts knows anti-choice extremists very well. In 1994, 22 year-old John Silva entered the Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline and opened fire. The receptionist on duty, 25 year-old Shannon Lowney, was killed. Salvi killed one other receptionist at a nearby clinic and in total wounded five others. He was convicted of the killings and later committed suicide in prison.
Anti-choice protesters are not all violent but the buffer zone provides some level of protection for the women legally entitled to their right to privacy when obtaining medical care. Which persons rights are being more violated? The individual with no business to conduct choosing to picket, protest and harass perfect strangers or the individual exercising their legal right to obtain a legal procedure? Not to mention that protestors are already violating the patients right to privacy by attempting to interfere in the first place.
In what other scenarios do individuals have to be subjected to harassment when receiving medical attention? Are there protestors outside of Hospitals? OBGYN's? Plastic Surgeons offices? No, the instance of abortion is one that is still so deeply stigmatized in our society that there MUST be laws such as the buffer zone in place to put at the VERY LEAST some physical distance between protestors and patients. Mind your own business anti-choice zealots- and if you really can't do that at least stay on the other side of the street.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
#Menforchoice (or Male Birth Control III)
Recently Naral Pro-Choice America deemed a day for Pro-Choice Men. #Menforchoice
The idea was to bring attention to Pro-Choice men and recognize the fact that in order to safeguard reproductive rights for women we must include everyone willing to stand up and declare themselves Pro-Choice. In Washington, D.C. a fundraiser was held for men benefiting Naral Pro-Choice America. Vice President Joe Biden's son was one of the progressive men in attendance. Buzzfeed featured a list of 11 male celebrities who they recognize as #MenForChoice
The reactions were mixed. My first thought was positive and I stand by that- any recognition given to the cause of women determining their own reproductive fate is something I support.
However, I understand that this campaign may have rubbed some people the wrong way. On the Pro-Choice side I feel like the negative reactions were based on the idea that since men aren't the ones bearing the brunt of the unintended pregnancies their opinions aren't important enough to warrant giving them their own "day." Also, given that the some statements made by these men for choice, such as: "Use today to thank a Pro-Choice man in your life," are giving props to a sect that shouldn't have a say in the situation at all let alone be thanked for it. Women already knew that they were people.
Then there are the Anti-Choice responders; yup, obviously men who support choice just want to be able to engage in casual unprotected sex without fearing any consequences. The rhetoric turned quickly from supporting choice to condemning men who recognized themselves as Pro-choice. On Twitter the hastag "MenForLife" sprung up and the dialog produced plenty of despicable comments. Never have I seen such a blatant display of the negative effects of gender stereotyping. Some of my personal faves include:
"#MenForChoice it's not too late 4 U. There are #Menforlife who can help you be the man and father you were created to be."
"#MenForChoice subject women to trauma and kill their babies. #MenforLife protect and love women and their babies. Girl's which do you prefer?"
"#MenForChoice makes you a tool for death, not a strong ally. Strong men lift up and protect life, Not TAKE it.
"MenForChoice because suctioning a human through a tube is the kind of healthcare cowards approve of."
Don't get me wrong, the tweets from the Pro-Choice side were awesome and it was great to hear from so many men who respect women enough to allow them to control their own bodies. The middle two tweets were from men and the first and last were from women; males and females populate both sides of the argument. What I find particularly telling is that the term "real men" was probably one of the most popular terms for the #MenForLife tweeters.
This leads me back to a subject I've written a few entries on before; Male Birth Control. You can find Part I here. and Part II here.
There are a lot of reason why men should be able to take additional steps to prevent pregnancy. I remember when I first read The Pill by Elaine Tyler May, I didn't expect to become so interested in the section about birth control for men, but I did. If one advocates reproductive autonomy as I do, nothing makes more sense to me than to provide males a birth control method. Besides the fact that I think everyone should be allowed to choose when they reproduce, male birth control could improve communication and respect between sexual partners.
There are men who feel that women will take advantage of them by getting pregnant on purpose. It's a fact that intercourse between two people take often takes place without having the birth control talk in advance. Now, I'm not saying that I think women are trying to "trap" men into undesired fatherhood but if that is a legitimate fear than those men should be able to take additional steps to ensure that they are doing everything in their power to prevent conception. Yes, I'm aware that the physical and emotional consequences of unintended pregnancies are felt nearly entirely by the women, but that does not mean that men do not have any consequences. As unsavory as it is there is the financial aspect as well as the emotional impact.
My entire point is this, Both MEN and WOMEN need to be able to take active steps towards preventing conception if that's what they want to do. A male birth control product should be allowed on the market because reproductive autonomy should be a HUMAN right. As for Naral's #MenForChoice campaign I guess the jury's still out on that. I'd like to think that the need for such campaigns will some day be a thing of the past, but until then I do appreciate men standing up for choice but I'm not going to be handing out medals for it anytime soon.
The idea was to bring attention to Pro-Choice men and recognize the fact that in order to safeguard reproductive rights for women we must include everyone willing to stand up and declare themselves Pro-Choice. In Washington, D.C. a fundraiser was held for men benefiting Naral Pro-Choice America. Vice President Joe Biden's son was one of the progressive men in attendance. Buzzfeed featured a list of 11 male celebrities who they recognize as #MenForChoice
The reactions were mixed. My first thought was positive and I stand by that- any recognition given to the cause of women determining their own reproductive fate is something I support.
However, I understand that this campaign may have rubbed some people the wrong way. On the Pro-Choice side I feel like the negative reactions were based on the idea that since men aren't the ones bearing the brunt of the unintended pregnancies their opinions aren't important enough to warrant giving them their own "day." Also, given that the some statements made by these men for choice, such as: "Use today to thank a Pro-Choice man in your life," are giving props to a sect that shouldn't have a say in the situation at all let alone be thanked for it. Women already knew that they were people.
Then there are the Anti-Choice responders; yup, obviously men who support choice just want to be able to engage in casual unprotected sex without fearing any consequences. The rhetoric turned quickly from supporting choice to condemning men who recognized themselves as Pro-choice. On Twitter the hastag "MenForLife" sprung up and the dialog produced plenty of despicable comments. Never have I seen such a blatant display of the negative effects of gender stereotyping. Some of my personal faves include:
"#MenForChoice it's not too late 4 U. There are #Menforlife who can help you be the man and father you were created to be."
"#MenForChoice subject women to trauma and kill their babies. #MenforLife protect and love women and their babies. Girl's which do you prefer?"
"#MenForChoice makes you a tool for death, not a strong ally. Strong men lift up and protect life, Not TAKE it.
"MenForChoice because suctioning a human through a tube is the kind of healthcare cowards approve of."
Don't get me wrong, the tweets from the Pro-Choice side were awesome and it was great to hear from so many men who respect women enough to allow them to control their own bodies. The middle two tweets were from men and the first and last were from women; males and females populate both sides of the argument. What I find particularly telling is that the term "real men" was probably one of the most popular terms for the #MenForLife tweeters.
This leads me back to a subject I've written a few entries on before; Male Birth Control. You can find Part I here. and Part II here.
There are a lot of reason why men should be able to take additional steps to prevent pregnancy. I remember when I first read The Pill by Elaine Tyler May, I didn't expect to become so interested in the section about birth control for men, but I did. If one advocates reproductive autonomy as I do, nothing makes more sense to me than to provide males a birth control method. Besides the fact that I think everyone should be allowed to choose when they reproduce, male birth control could improve communication and respect between sexual partners.
There are men who feel that women will take advantage of them by getting pregnant on purpose. It's a fact that intercourse between two people take often takes place without having the birth control talk in advance. Now, I'm not saying that I think women are trying to "trap" men into undesired fatherhood but if that is a legitimate fear than those men should be able to take additional steps to ensure that they are doing everything in their power to prevent conception. Yes, I'm aware that the physical and emotional consequences of unintended pregnancies are felt nearly entirely by the women, but that does not mean that men do not have any consequences. As unsavory as it is there is the financial aspect as well as the emotional impact.
My entire point is this, Both MEN and WOMEN need to be able to take active steps towards preventing conception if that's what they want to do. A male birth control product should be allowed on the market because reproductive autonomy should be a HUMAN right. As for Naral's #MenForChoice campaign I guess the jury's still out on that. I'd like to think that the need for such campaigns will some day be a thing of the past, but until then I do appreciate men standing up for choice but I'm not going to be handing out medals for it anytime soon.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
AFTER TILLER
AFTER TILLER is a new documentary coming out Sept. 20th which follows the few Doctors left in America that are able to perform late term abortions. George Tiller was shot to death in 2009 while serving as an usher in church. The documentary centers around the personal and professional struggles that face the only four remaining Doctors who are licensed to perform late term abortions.
The quote that struck me the most from the intense and emotional trailer is that of Dr. Shelley Sella: "Unless people understand what's going on with the women, it's impossible to support it." Secondly, is this snippet from Dr. Susan Robinson: "You have choices, they all suck."
A lot of women obtaining third trimester abortions do so upon finding out that the fetus has genetic and or chromosomal abnormalities. Amniocentesis can be performed at a minimal risk to the fetus after 15-20 weeks. Therefore, women are already well into their second trimester when the results of amniocentesis become available. The rhetoric from the anti-choice populace would have us believe that women undergoing late-term abortions are either heartless monsters who don't want their "imperfect" pregnancy or that these women have just been too lazy to obtain an abortion earlier. Neither is true and it is these dangerous assumptions that further stigmatizes and isolates women from maintaining and there own dignity as autonomous human beings whose lives should always come first.
If you live in New York or one of these other cities where AFTER TILLER is being SHOWN, I urge you to screen the film asap. If the showings are to be expanded to smaller cities nationwide (which is IMPERATIVE) then the early screenings need to be PACKED. I apologize for the excessive amount of all capitals, I'm just VERY EXCITED.
If you don't believe me please head over to Reality Check and FIND OUT ALL THE OTHER REASONS why viewing this film is a MUST!
Friday, September 13, 2013
Sentence of Death in India Gang Rape
There are few things in life that you can have an absolute opinion on, things you consider strictly black or white. For me, I have always been Pro-Choice and I have always been against the Anti-Death Penalty. For the former I was first openly challenged at age 14 when the "abortion" video was to be presented to my Catechism class by a fervent women lawyer spouting few facts and plenty of hate...I got up and left- the rest of that story I will save for another time. As for the death penalty, I came to fully realize the extent of my feelings at the age of 12/13 in my eighth grade U.S. History class. My teacher was an interesting character. My Mother also had him for her eighth grade history class at the same middle some several decades before- she described him as a sort of lecherous man who was at times "too friendly" to his female students. Needless to say I was particularly weary of him from the start. While Mr. Barry's teaching methods were somewhat unorthodox (he once threw one of our text books out the window upon being dared to by my classmates), I learned a great deal from that class and the one thing that sticks with me to this day is how much I disapprove of State sponsored executions in any case. Once during a debate on the death penalty, at the very end I was pitted against the only other student in the class who was as advanced in debating as I was (at least at that time). I had him changing his mind by the end of class and won the debate for the anti-death penalty side.
Mr. Barry jumped on the boy for over turning his convictions so easily once the debate got heated. I used the most popular arguments for why I was anti-death penalty. Obviously, the inability to be 100% confident of a person’s guilt and therefore the inevitability of executing innocent people is the primary. In addition, the lack of certainty that the death penalty does anything to actually deter crime, the unjust way in which the death penalty is handed down to those who are the poorest members of society and the hypocrisy of murder being a crime when committed by an individual but a "sentence" when handed down by the state. Mr. Barry then turned to me and congratulated me on sticking to my guns so to speak- he then proceeded to offer me examples of situations where the death penalty could be considered by some to be a reasonable and just consequence for the perpetrator of such crimes. He asked about cold blooded murder, murder of a child, murder of multiple people, murder with torture, rape, dismemberment, murder of multiple people, families, women and he went on for some time- each time he paused and looked at me with eyebrows raised, waiting for me to respond that I still would not call for the death penalty as appropriate punishment. Each time he asked in a louder voice and at first I calmly replied "No" in every instance. As the instances became more and more severe he begun shouting and the student's in the class had their heads shifting rapidly back and forth between my 12 year-old self and this 50 plus man in the clear position of authority- you could sense the intensity rising in the classroom as the bell rang and other classes began pouring into the hallway. I don't remember the exact situation described which finally brought the exchange to a climax but I will never forget standing up with so much force that I knocked my desk over and screamed "NO!" so loudly that the students in the hallway fell dead silence. At this point tears are escaping my eyes and I'm psychically shaking with adrenaline- Mr. Barry calmly walked over to me and stuck his hand out to me to shake, "Good for you Ms. Callahan, good for you."
Earlier this year I wrote about the horrific instance of the fatal gang rape which took place on a bus in India. A woman was returning home with a male friend from viewing a movie in Delhi were lured onto a bus that contained six intoxicated men who attacked them. Please see A DANGEROUS PERSPECTIVE for my initial post and more information. This is how the suspects were found and tied to the incident, DELHI RAPE SUSPECTS. The driver of the bus* was found hung in his prison cell in March of an apparent suicide. The youngest (and by several accounts the most vicious) of the six perpetrators was several months shy of his 18th birthday when the rape occurred and therefore was sentenced to the maximum term allowed in the instance of a juvenile which is three years in a special correctional facility. According to a police spokesperson, the teenager was the most violent, and apparently “sexually abused his victim twice and ripped out her intestines with his bare hands (citation). The remaining four perpetrators were found guilty of murder and rape and while the sentence was supposed to be handed down on Wednesday, the judge waited until this morning to announce the fate of the guilty.
The four men were sentenced to death by hanging this morning. In India, death penalty sentences have been on the decline for the past decade. However, the last state sanctioned executions have occurred in late 2012: the hanging of Ajmal Kasab, convicted of terror charges in a 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed more than 160 people, and Afzal Guru, convicted of plotting a 2001 attack on Parliament. Looking at India's history of sentencing past Supreme Court rulings have said the death penalty is warranted for crimes committed in such "an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community."
The country responded with widespread outrage after details of the gruesome attack began becoming available to the public. As in most countries and the world, rape is a widespread occurrence. In India, statistic start at a rape occurring every 20 minutes or a total of 72 rapes every day (citation). Most rapes are unreported for fear of societal stigma and familial rejection, thus few perpetrators ever face consequences for the crime. Even in the instance of reported rape the conviction rate is startling low.
I've followed this case closely since January and especially so this week. It's something that I haven't been able to get out of my mind to be honest. When the guilty verdict was handed down on Wednesday I started pouring over the all the articles again and any new information on the case that I could find. I first heard about the sentence at about 6:30am this morning. I wasn't surprised, but I can't lie- I felt relieved. For the first time in my life I was a type of happy that a "State" was planning on ending the lives of the accused and tried of an unspeakably horrible crime.
I can't say that I think it's the "right" thing to do. I can't say that I "agree" with the sentence, but I don't feel the way I always have in the past. I've looked at cases of horrific, disgusting crimes- murder, child murder, murder with unspeakable torture involved-all by seemingly indecent and inhumane individuals and I've always come up with the same result in the end. The death penalty is always wrong- but at least for the moment in this case I cannot say that anymore. It isn't that I haven't thought that some people are not savable, unable to be reformed, a "waste of space" even...I have thought all those things and I have wondered why it is that I don't think executions are an acceptable form of punishment. I was raised Roman Catholic and I'm sure that may have something to do with my opinion but I look at it as more of a "gut check" so to speak. When you face yourself and reason with yourself and search within yourself you come up with a core feeling or belief. "This is wrong, this is right" or even "I don't know." In this case my gut tells me that I don’t think I have any problem with these men being killed.
I will continue to ask myself these questions…will the death of these four men prevent any rapes from occurring? Will the precedent make would be rapist reconsider their actions? Will their murders at all change the way that women are perceived in Indian culture? What if perpetrators turn from rapists into murderers to further prevent women from reporting their rapes if the instances of reporting begins to rise? Is this a ploy to save face by the Indian government and does it even mean anything if it is? What about what the victim wanted? On her deathbed she is said to have requested that her attackers and killers be “burned alive.”
So no, I don't think I'm alone in these sentiments. My personal struggle with right and wrong will continue on as it does with everyone. I don't have a monopoly on personal struggles. Neither death nor jail for life will bring back the victim of such a miserable fate. Maybe I feel this way because because I'm getting older and more jaded. Maybe as a women/human my own personal aversion to rapists has allowed me to finally cross over to the side that says some individuals commit acts which forfeit their right to continue living. I don't think changing ones mind is not allowed. I don't think having an evolving opinion means that you have weak convictions and I don't think that calling out a gray area means that you have failed to choose a side. My 12 year old self wants to stand up and state with utter certainty that no one should ever be executed by a government...and not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things but my 28 year-old self does wonder what the late Mr. Barry would have to say to me now.
*Most of the articles I have read call Ram Singh (the accused who was found hung in March) as the driver.
Mr. Barry jumped on the boy for over turning his convictions so easily once the debate got heated. I used the most popular arguments for why I was anti-death penalty. Obviously, the inability to be 100% confident of a person’s guilt and therefore the inevitability of executing innocent people is the primary. In addition, the lack of certainty that the death penalty does anything to actually deter crime, the unjust way in which the death penalty is handed down to those who are the poorest members of society and the hypocrisy of murder being a crime when committed by an individual but a "sentence" when handed down by the state. Mr. Barry then turned to me and congratulated me on sticking to my guns so to speak- he then proceeded to offer me examples of situations where the death penalty could be considered by some to be a reasonable and just consequence for the perpetrator of such crimes. He asked about cold blooded murder, murder of a child, murder of multiple people, murder with torture, rape, dismemberment, murder of multiple people, families, women and he went on for some time- each time he paused and looked at me with eyebrows raised, waiting for me to respond that I still would not call for the death penalty as appropriate punishment. Each time he asked in a louder voice and at first I calmly replied "No" in every instance. As the instances became more and more severe he begun shouting and the student's in the class had their heads shifting rapidly back and forth between my 12 year-old self and this 50 plus man in the clear position of authority- you could sense the intensity rising in the classroom as the bell rang and other classes began pouring into the hallway. I don't remember the exact situation described which finally brought the exchange to a climax but I will never forget standing up with so much force that I knocked my desk over and screamed "NO!" so loudly that the students in the hallway fell dead silence. At this point tears are escaping my eyes and I'm psychically shaking with adrenaline- Mr. Barry calmly walked over to me and stuck his hand out to me to shake, "Good for you Ms. Callahan, good for you."
Earlier this year I wrote about the horrific instance of the fatal gang rape which took place on a bus in India. A woman was returning home with a male friend from viewing a movie in Delhi were lured onto a bus that contained six intoxicated men who attacked them. Please see A DANGEROUS PERSPECTIVE for my initial post and more information. This is how the suspects were found and tied to the incident, DELHI RAPE SUSPECTS. The driver of the bus* was found hung in his prison cell in March of an apparent suicide. The youngest (and by several accounts the most vicious) of the six perpetrators was several months shy of his 18th birthday when the rape occurred and therefore was sentenced to the maximum term allowed in the instance of a juvenile which is three years in a special correctional facility. According to a police spokesperson, the teenager was the most violent, and apparently “sexually abused his victim twice and ripped out her intestines with his bare hands (citation). The remaining four perpetrators were found guilty of murder and rape and while the sentence was supposed to be handed down on Wednesday, the judge waited until this morning to announce the fate of the guilty.
The four men were sentenced to death by hanging this morning. In India, death penalty sentences have been on the decline for the past decade. However, the last state sanctioned executions have occurred in late 2012: the hanging of Ajmal Kasab, convicted of terror charges in a 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed more than 160 people, and Afzal Guru, convicted of plotting a 2001 attack on Parliament. Looking at India's history of sentencing past Supreme Court rulings have said the death penalty is warranted for crimes committed in such "an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community."
The country responded with widespread outrage after details of the gruesome attack began becoming available to the public. As in most countries and the world, rape is a widespread occurrence. In India, statistic start at a rape occurring every 20 minutes or a total of 72 rapes every day (citation). Most rapes are unreported for fear of societal stigma and familial rejection, thus few perpetrators ever face consequences for the crime. Even in the instance of reported rape the conviction rate is startling low.
I've followed this case closely since January and especially so this week. It's something that I haven't been able to get out of my mind to be honest. When the guilty verdict was handed down on Wednesday I started pouring over the all the articles again and any new information on the case that I could find. I first heard about the sentence at about 6:30am this morning. I wasn't surprised, but I can't lie- I felt relieved. For the first time in my life I was a type of happy that a "State" was planning on ending the lives of the accused and tried of an unspeakably horrible crime.
I can't say that I think it's the "right" thing to do. I can't say that I "agree" with the sentence, but I don't feel the way I always have in the past. I've looked at cases of horrific, disgusting crimes- murder, child murder, murder with unspeakable torture involved-all by seemingly indecent and inhumane individuals and I've always come up with the same result in the end. The death penalty is always wrong- but at least for the moment in this case I cannot say that anymore. It isn't that I haven't thought that some people are not savable, unable to be reformed, a "waste of space" even...I have thought all those things and I have wondered why it is that I don't think executions are an acceptable form of punishment. I was raised Roman Catholic and I'm sure that may have something to do with my opinion but I look at it as more of a "gut check" so to speak. When you face yourself and reason with yourself and search within yourself you come up with a core feeling or belief. "This is wrong, this is right" or even "I don't know." In this case my gut tells me that I don’t think I have any problem with these men being killed.
I will continue to ask myself these questions…will the death of these four men prevent any rapes from occurring? Will the precedent make would be rapist reconsider their actions? Will their murders at all change the way that women are perceived in Indian culture? What if perpetrators turn from rapists into murderers to further prevent women from reporting their rapes if the instances of reporting begins to rise? Is this a ploy to save face by the Indian government and does it even mean anything if it is? What about what the victim wanted? On her deathbed she is said to have requested that her attackers and killers be “burned alive.”
So no, I don't think I'm alone in these sentiments. My personal struggle with right and wrong will continue on as it does with everyone. I don't have a monopoly on personal struggles. Neither death nor jail for life will bring back the victim of such a miserable fate. Maybe I feel this way because because I'm getting older and more jaded. Maybe as a women/human my own personal aversion to rapists has allowed me to finally cross over to the side that says some individuals commit acts which forfeit their right to continue living. I don't think changing ones mind is not allowed. I don't think having an evolving opinion means that you have weak convictions and I don't think that calling out a gray area means that you have failed to choose a side. My 12 year old self wants to stand up and state with utter certainty that no one should ever be executed by a government...and not that it really matters in the grand scheme of things but my 28 year-old self does wonder what the late Mr. Barry would have to say to me now.
*Most of the articles I have read call Ram Singh (the accused who was found hung in March) as the driver.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Waiting for October
August is nearly over and I have only written a single entry this entire month. My blog is most certainly mirroring the identity crisis I am (hopefully) in the middle of having. I've been thinking of changing to a different site to host it and or MAYBE starting my own site. I've been worrying about copyright and legality issues (almost unreasonably so) and I am almost thinking that I may close the whole thing down and work solely on pieces geared towards being published online or in print. There are so many things that can be related to Feminism and Women's rights- A TON of things. My focus is mostly on Reproductive Rights and Abortion. Secondarily, I have written a lot outside of this blog about Pornography and the relationship it has to Feminism. As of right now, I am drawn to the exclusion of minority and African American women in mainstream Feminism and the disservice that results in allowing white women to speak for all women.
A lot of....THOUGHTS I guess. I will leave you with some items that have stuck out to me in recent weeks and then continue meandering through all my thoughts and my current crisis of self.
The President of the League of Women Voters in the US wrote this blog post for the HUFFINGTON POST on Women's Equality Day- the day commemorating the passage of the 19th Amendment. She also talks about the current status of voting rights in the United States.
The ONLY thing that I've shared or cared about regarding Miley Cyrus and her VMA performance SOLIDARITY FOR MILEY CYRUS
This blog post really struck me. It popped up on FB a couple weeks ago and whether you are in a relationship or not it's a must read TOXIC RELATIONSHIP HABITS
What difference does it make if you can't take a day off during the week to get an abortion? ALABAMAS SATURDAY WOMEN
Until next time...
A lot of....THOUGHTS I guess. I will leave you with some items that have stuck out to me in recent weeks and then continue meandering through all my thoughts and my current crisis of self.
The President of the League of Women Voters in the US wrote this blog post for the HUFFINGTON POST on Women's Equality Day- the day commemorating the passage of the 19th Amendment. She also talks about the current status of voting rights in the United States.
The ONLY thing that I've shared or cared about regarding Miley Cyrus and her VMA performance SOLIDARITY FOR MILEY CYRUS
This blog post really struck me. It popped up on FB a couple weeks ago and whether you are in a relationship or not it's a must read TOXIC RELATIONSHIP HABITS
What difference does it make if you can't take a day off during the week to get an abortion? ALABAMAS SATURDAY WOMEN
Until next time...
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Six Week Timer (or Would You Know You were Pregnant?)
North Dakota is trying to ban abortions after 6 weeks. North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple signed a bill into law in March and did so with the expectation that it would be ruled unconstitutional. Thankfully, it was. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the law, siding with reproductive health advocates and stating in no uncertain terms that the law is clearly unconstitutional.
Republicans in both Arizona and Arkansas passed 20 week and 12 week bans (respectively) within the past year. After the 20 week ban in Texas passed the Republican law makers drafted their own legislation to bring a proposed 6 week ban into effect. The bill would require women seeking abortion to first undergo an ultrasound, and if the fetal heartbeat can be detected she would be banned from having the procedure. The fetal heart beat is usually detected around the sixth week of pregnancy.
The tactics of Republicans and the Pro-life movement have long been rooted in creating obstacles for women to obtain a legal abortion. The 20 week abortion ban in Texas for instance, not only made it illegal to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks but simultaneously closed down most of the abortion clinics in the State who could not afford to make the unnecessary changes to be licensed as surgical ambulatory centers which was called for in the bill (i.e. wider hallways).
While Republicans spend an enormous amount of time, energy and resources on drafting these bills and attempting to push them through their respective state legislatures, the end goal is to overturn Roe v.Wade and in the meantime prevent as many women from obtaining legal abortions as possible. With bans in place women have a limited time in which they can find out they are pregnant, decide to terminate said pregnancy, gather funds in which to pay for the procedure, make an appointment, find a ride, take the day off from work and so on and so forth. Of course, the longer one has to wait to obtain an abortion the more expensive and more complicated the procedure will be.
This is why the ban on abortions starting as soon as a fetal heart rate is detected is absolutely ridiculous. Women often find out that they are pregnant at the 6 week mark or for some much later. For anyone who has the opinion that women have to know the second they are impregnated, you are wrong. Simple as that. If you don't have a female reproductive system your opinion on the matter is null and void, if you do have a female reproductive system and you still can't believe that women cannot know that they are pregnant then you are also wrong. It happens.
The exact statistics of these instances are hard to pin down. It seems that the most recent statistics claim it occurs between 1 in 475 women and 1 in 600 women (though European data seems much lower at 1 in 2500 women as of 2009). Upon further inspection the difference in statistics is that the 1 in 475/600 is in the case when a women discovers she is pregnant late into the actually pregnancy and the 1 in 2500 is for women who actually go into labor without knowing they were pregnant at all.
You may be asking yourself the question- "how is it possible to not know that you are pregnant?" Let's discuss how this is possible.
First and foremost you may take one or more pregnancy tests that come back negative. Okay, easy enough to understand right?
What about missing your period? Doesn't that make it obvious? Some women get their periods (menstrual cycle) every 21 days, menstruate for 4-7 days and then start all over again. A more average occurrence may be every a period every 24-35 days and actual menstruation of somewhere between 2-7 days. This is just an average and the point is that there are women who's cycles are completely irregular. Sometimes stress, weight loss or gain or environmental circumstances can cause missed periods or cycle changes. Some women may have very light periods that often include minimal spotting or barely any fluid at all. Everybody is different! There are women who spot throughout their pregnancies too. So saying that a woman would automatically know she was pregnant because she misses her period is not accurate.
What about getting pregnant when you're on birth control? There are a lot of methods of birth control out there; the pill, the patch, the implant, IUD's (Intrauterine devices implanted along the wall of the uterus), the shot, the ring and more still. Each method has a varying rate of failure. IUD's can be up to 99.9% effective, BUT the only way to absolutely avoid being impregnated is to not have sex. So in theory, no matter what birth control method you use there is a chance that you COULD become pregnant if you engage in intercourse. BUT the odds of becoming pregnant while on birth control are much lower than if you aren't and it isn't hard to imagine a women who may not have any symptoms of pregnancy and have an IUD in place think that she couldn't be pregnant- add in a false negative on a pregnancy test and it becomes even easier to see how this can happen.
There is also EC (emergency contraception). EC is a pill you can take up to 72 hours after unprotected sex to greatly reduce the risk of becoming pregnant. If you are already pregnant, EC won't work. However, if you take EC right after unprotected sex your odds of becoming pregnant goes down significantly. Without additional symptoms you may think that you couldn't be pregnant.
If you want to hear specific stories about women who didn't know they were pregnant then you can look up the TV reality show that aired on Discovery Health between 2008-2011, "I Didn't Know I was Pregnant." Yes, there are obvious over dramatizations and sensationalism on this and every other reality shows but it does provide some food for thought about the topic.
So, to tie all this back into abortion bans- when States make it extremely difficult to access first-term abortions by placing obstacles in front of women (waiting periods, mandatory counseling, little to no clinic availability) the result is that women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies much longer into term than desired which in turn hurts everyone.
Yes, it does get trickier to talk about abortion when you get to a certain gestational age. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be talking about it though. The obvious focus shouldn't be on banning late term abortions but about ensuring accessibility to all women seeking abortions earlier in the pregnancy. When abortion access is not readily available to certain women because of their income level or geographical location the time it can take for that woman to gain access can turn a first-term abortion in the second or even third trimester. Most states do not allow third-term an abortion, the limit in the United States is about 26 weeks and this is only allowed in the event of severe fetal abnormalities or if the health of the mother is in serious danger.
The goal of states like North Dakota, Arizona and Texas is to make abortion so inaccessible to women that they need to be either extremely wealthy or extremely fortunate in order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Abortions will happen. They will occur no matter what. If women cannot access them early and safely than there will be women who will be so desperate that they will take matters into their own hands. Bans do nothing but further the disconnect between what Anti-choice individuals want and what all women in every state deserve; early, safe and affordable abortions.
Republicans in both Arizona and Arkansas passed 20 week and 12 week bans (respectively) within the past year. After the 20 week ban in Texas passed the Republican law makers drafted their own legislation to bring a proposed 6 week ban into effect. The bill would require women seeking abortion to first undergo an ultrasound, and if the fetal heartbeat can be detected she would be banned from having the procedure. The fetal heart beat is usually detected around the sixth week of pregnancy.
The tactics of Republicans and the Pro-life movement have long been rooted in creating obstacles for women to obtain a legal abortion. The 20 week abortion ban in Texas for instance, not only made it illegal to obtain an abortion after 20 weeks but simultaneously closed down most of the abortion clinics in the State who could not afford to make the unnecessary changes to be licensed as surgical ambulatory centers which was called for in the bill (i.e. wider hallways).
While Republicans spend an enormous amount of time, energy and resources on drafting these bills and attempting to push them through their respective state legislatures, the end goal is to overturn Roe v.Wade and in the meantime prevent as many women from obtaining legal abortions as possible. With bans in place women have a limited time in which they can find out they are pregnant, decide to terminate said pregnancy, gather funds in which to pay for the procedure, make an appointment, find a ride, take the day off from work and so on and so forth. Of course, the longer one has to wait to obtain an abortion the more expensive and more complicated the procedure will be.
This is why the ban on abortions starting as soon as a fetal heart rate is detected is absolutely ridiculous. Women often find out that they are pregnant at the 6 week mark or for some much later. For anyone who has the opinion that women have to know the second they are impregnated, you are wrong. Simple as that. If you don't have a female reproductive system your opinion on the matter is null and void, if you do have a female reproductive system and you still can't believe that women cannot know that they are pregnant then you are also wrong. It happens.
The exact statistics of these instances are hard to pin down. It seems that the most recent statistics claim it occurs between 1 in 475 women and 1 in 600 women (though European data seems much lower at 1 in 2500 women as of 2009). Upon further inspection the difference in statistics is that the 1 in 475/600 is in the case when a women discovers she is pregnant late into the actually pregnancy and the 1 in 2500 is for women who actually go into labor without knowing they were pregnant at all.
You may be asking yourself the question- "how is it possible to not know that you are pregnant?" Let's discuss how this is possible.
First and foremost you may take one or more pregnancy tests that come back negative. Okay, easy enough to understand right?
What about missing your period? Doesn't that make it obvious? Some women get their periods (menstrual cycle) every 21 days, menstruate for 4-7 days and then start all over again. A more average occurrence may be every a period every 24-35 days and actual menstruation of somewhere between 2-7 days. This is just an average and the point is that there are women who's cycles are completely irregular. Sometimes stress, weight loss or gain or environmental circumstances can cause missed periods or cycle changes. Some women may have very light periods that often include minimal spotting or barely any fluid at all. Everybody is different! There are women who spot throughout their pregnancies too. So saying that a woman would automatically know she was pregnant because she misses her period is not accurate.
What about getting pregnant when you're on birth control? There are a lot of methods of birth control out there; the pill, the patch, the implant, IUD's (Intrauterine devices implanted along the wall of the uterus), the shot, the ring and more still. Each method has a varying rate of failure. IUD's can be up to 99.9% effective, BUT the only way to absolutely avoid being impregnated is to not have sex. So in theory, no matter what birth control method you use there is a chance that you COULD become pregnant if you engage in intercourse. BUT the odds of becoming pregnant while on birth control are much lower than if you aren't and it isn't hard to imagine a women who may not have any symptoms of pregnancy and have an IUD in place think that she couldn't be pregnant- add in a false negative on a pregnancy test and it becomes even easier to see how this can happen.
There is also EC (emergency contraception). EC is a pill you can take up to 72 hours after unprotected sex to greatly reduce the risk of becoming pregnant. If you are already pregnant, EC won't work. However, if you take EC right after unprotected sex your odds of becoming pregnant goes down significantly. Without additional symptoms you may think that you couldn't be pregnant.
If you want to hear specific stories about women who didn't know they were pregnant then you can look up the TV reality show that aired on Discovery Health between 2008-2011, "I Didn't Know I was Pregnant." Yes, there are obvious over dramatizations and sensationalism on this and every other reality shows but it does provide some food for thought about the topic.
So, to tie all this back into abortion bans- when States make it extremely difficult to access first-term abortions by placing obstacles in front of women (waiting periods, mandatory counseling, little to no clinic availability) the result is that women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies much longer into term than desired which in turn hurts everyone.
Yes, it does get trickier to talk about abortion when you get to a certain gestational age. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't be talking about it though. The obvious focus shouldn't be on banning late term abortions but about ensuring accessibility to all women seeking abortions earlier in the pregnancy. When abortion access is not readily available to certain women because of their income level or geographical location the time it can take for that woman to gain access can turn a first-term abortion in the second or even third trimester. Most states do not allow third-term an abortion, the limit in the United States is about 26 weeks and this is only allowed in the event of severe fetal abnormalities or if the health of the mother is in serious danger.
The goal of states like North Dakota, Arizona and Texas is to make abortion so inaccessible to women that they need to be either extremely wealthy or extremely fortunate in order to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Abortions will happen. They will occur no matter what. If women cannot access them early and safely than there will be women who will be so desperate that they will take matters into their own hands. Bans do nothing but further the disconnect between what Anti-choice individuals want and what all women in every state deserve; early, safe and affordable abortions.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
"Gynoticians"
I know I'm on a link kick and haven't been doing much criticism/analysis of late- it's coming.
Hilarious Slam of Gynoticians: A little too close to home.
Enjoy Amber Tambyln and David Cross show what happens when Politicians play Doctors.
Hilarious Slam of Gynoticians: A little too close to home.
Enjoy Amber Tambyln and David Cross show what happens when Politicians play Doctors.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Progression of Opinions- A Pro-Lifer Loses Faith in the Movement
How I Lost Faith in the Pro-Life Movement
A very well written and researched piece by a young women raised to believe that abortion is always murder. She begins to change her mind after doing her own research and reflecting on what the anti-choice movement is really trying to do. Not saving the "unborn" but regulating sex and denying women their own human rights.
A very well written and researched piece by a young women raised to believe that abortion is always murder. She begins to change her mind after doing her own research and reflecting on what the anti-choice movement is really trying to do. Not saving the "unborn" but regulating sex and denying women their own human rights.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
A Grave Disservice to the Women of Texas
Texas Senator Wendy Davis succeeded in her attempt to filibuster against an anti-abortion bill that would enact wide ranging restrictions on abortion access in the nations second most populous state. Speaking for nearly 11 hours straight last week, Senator Davis was halted near the 11-hour mark after the chairman ruled that she had gone off topic. Governor Perry has already called a second special session which grants the state senate up to a month in order to try and pass the bill again. As of early Wednesday morning the House State Affairs Committee approved the bill to be brought up to the House and Senate.
The proposal would effect ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy but that is not all nor is it the main purpose of HB2 (House Bill 2). HB2 would also require doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, limit abortions to surgical centers and stipulate doctors must monitor even non-surgical abortions (medication abortions). So while the proponents of the bill say that the goal is to protect the health and safety of every women who undergoes an abortion- the actuality of this bill leaves Texas with five (out of 42) clinics that qualify as ambulatory surgical centers and they are located only in major metropolitan areas. This is an obvious ploy by Republicans to make getting an abortion so difficult to obtain for some Texas women that they will be left with no choice but to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
No one on the supporting side of the bill can provide evidence indicating that the proposed changes to abortion clinic facilities are necessary or would amount to the improved health or safety of the patients. The goal of this bill in its entirety is to place additional hurdles in front of women seeking abortions and the providers seeking to extend to them their legal right to terminate. Senator Harvey Hildebrand(R) of Kerrville stated,"The whole objective of this bill is to save lives ... and to protect the unborn." The lives of the women who are already born do not supersede those of "the unborn" apparently.
The lengths to which Texas Republicans will go to in order to make this anachronistic bill the law of their land is despicable. Ilyse Hogue wrote an opinion piece for CNN that covers the abysmal tactics that Texas Republicans have succumb to in order to force this unnecessary bill through. Hogue writes in part, "The Republicans couldn't pass this bill in regular session -- Texas law requires a two-thirds Senate majority for these measures, and the GOP simply didn't have it. So instead of building support the old-fashioned way for this radical legislation, Gov. Perry decided he'd just change the rules. He called a special session after the end of the normal legislative period, and his friend, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, declared they no longer needed a super majority vote."
Obviously many would disagree with me but it doesn't matter what you think about abortion if you are not the one obtaining one. If you have one and then regret it for whatever reason, you still got to choose and have a safe, private, surgical procedure. Remember, you personally do not have to have an abortion, but further still- allowing any women a safe and legal abortion is not something that negatively impacts your life in a tangible way. It does NOT take away any of your rights. You can think that she is a murderess, you can hope she can never become pregnant again, you can lose sleep over it, you can even condemn her and everyone else for that matter to hell and beyond but you cannot say that you have the right to decide what women do with their own bodies. One can argue this fact as much as one wants but the anti-choice rhetoric puts individuals whose moral or religious views differ from others on the same plane as the individual themselves. Simply put, judge and be judged and more importantly- mind your own business.
The proposal would effect ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy but that is not all nor is it the main purpose of HB2 (House Bill 2). HB2 would also require doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, limit abortions to surgical centers and stipulate doctors must monitor even non-surgical abortions (medication abortions). So while the proponents of the bill say that the goal is to protect the health and safety of every women who undergoes an abortion- the actuality of this bill leaves Texas with five (out of 42) clinics that qualify as ambulatory surgical centers and they are located only in major metropolitan areas. This is an obvious ploy by Republicans to make getting an abortion so difficult to obtain for some Texas women that they will be left with no choice but to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
No one on the supporting side of the bill can provide evidence indicating that the proposed changes to abortion clinic facilities are necessary or would amount to the improved health or safety of the patients. The goal of this bill in its entirety is to place additional hurdles in front of women seeking abortions and the providers seeking to extend to them their legal right to terminate. Senator Harvey Hildebrand(R) of Kerrville stated,"The whole objective of this bill is to save lives ... and to protect the unborn." The lives of the women who are already born do not supersede those of "the unborn" apparently.
The lengths to which Texas Republicans will go to in order to make this anachronistic bill the law of their land is despicable. Ilyse Hogue wrote an opinion piece for CNN that covers the abysmal tactics that Texas Republicans have succumb to in order to force this unnecessary bill through. Hogue writes in part, "The Republicans couldn't pass this bill in regular session -- Texas law requires a two-thirds Senate majority for these measures, and the GOP simply didn't have it. So instead of building support the old-fashioned way for this radical legislation, Gov. Perry decided he'd just change the rules. He called a special session after the end of the normal legislative period, and his friend, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, declared they no longer needed a super majority vote."
Obviously many would disagree with me but it doesn't matter what you think about abortion if you are not the one obtaining one. If you have one and then regret it for whatever reason, you still got to choose and have a safe, private, surgical procedure. Remember, you personally do not have to have an abortion, but further still- allowing any women a safe and legal abortion is not something that negatively impacts your life in a tangible way. It does NOT take away any of your rights. You can think that she is a murderess, you can hope she can never become pregnant again, you can lose sleep over it, you can even condemn her and everyone else for that matter to hell and beyond but you cannot say that you have the right to decide what women do with their own bodies. One can argue this fact as much as one wants but the anti-choice rhetoric puts individuals whose moral or religious views differ from others on the same plane as the individual themselves. Simply put, judge and be judged and more importantly- mind your own business.
Sunday, June 23, 2013
Crisis Pregnancy Centers: A Day of Action
One of my earliest blog entries talked about Crisis Pregnancy Centers, The Clinic Across the Street. I'd like to say that in the last year and a half a lot has changed but unfortunately that is not the case.
Crisis Pregnancy Center's (or CPC's) are defined by Naral Pro-Choice Massachusetts as being centers or clinics which (1) purport to provide education and counseling services and free or fee-based pregnancy-related services such as pregnancy tests and ultra sounds, (2) provide misleading, incomplete, or proven-to-be-false information related to sexuality, abortion, abortion-related risks, and birth control, and (3) will not perform abortions or provide abortion referrals.
In my city we have a CPC not to far from where I grew up. There is a neon sign hang up in the front window advertising "Free Pregnancy Tests"- it isn't a health center and if you are aware of CPC's you would probably come to the conclusion that this is one after spending a few moments on their web site. Some key clues to this is they do not mention abortion except in the case of "post-abortion support." The counseling they offer includes the term "spiritual" and they include abstinence education in their list of resources as well as free maternity and baby clothes. Naral Pro-Choice has a campaign geared towards exposing CPC's. Follow the link above to go to there main page on CPC's.
Women who end up in CPC's are lied to and intimidated into being convinced that they should continue their pregnancies no matter what. In any and all circumstances. If you watch the first video clip on the page above you can hear a training from anti-choice activist Abby Johnson instructing CPC workers on how to get women into their centers by giving the impression that they are entering an abortion clinic. Johnson states "We want to appear neutral on the outside. The best call, the best client you could ever get is one that THINKS they're walking into an abortion clinic." If this isn't deception, I don't know what is. Other comments by Johnson indicates that the goal of CPC's is to deceive women into thinking that they are being given advice from professionals and or medically trained and licensed individuals- "We want to look professional. We want to look business like and yeah we do, we do kinda want to look medical." Johnson goes on to explain how the staffers of CPC's should offer free ultrasounds to women who call asking if the centers provide abortion services because in order to obtain an abortion they will have to get an ultrasound anyway as part of the process. Once the women come into the centers they are then further manipulated into thinking they are receiving medically accurate information.
Another video shows a women entering a CPC in Louisville, KY. for information about her options and how she is given completely false information. A few examples: "I can tell you that everybody that has done it (had an abortion) has regretted it."
"It can make you infertile."
The counselor tells the young women "her own" story and how she cannot have children now because of her abortion. She says, "What happened to me is they did it. And it, and the fetus was still inside of me and they had to do it again." When the women asks her if this happens a lot she replies, "It can happen. It's very common."
The worst part about CPC's is that they feel that their manipulation and coercive techniques are entirely justifiable. That they are blatantly lying to women is not their concern. Women who enter these centers are not independent autonomous human beings to the people who staff these places- they are simply impregnated women who cannot be trusted to be given accurate information so that they may make their own decisions. The health and well being of the mother is not something that is of concern. The greater mission of CPC's is forcing their beliefs and values on everyone who enters the centers by whatever means necessary; including giving completely false and often damaging "information" to women who are often in vulnerable positions and just want to be told the truth.
Crisis Pregnancy Center's (or CPC's) are defined by Naral Pro-Choice Massachusetts as being centers or clinics which (1) purport to provide education and counseling services and free or fee-based pregnancy-related services such as pregnancy tests and ultra sounds, (2) provide misleading, incomplete, or proven-to-be-false information related to sexuality, abortion, abortion-related risks, and birth control, and (3) will not perform abortions or provide abortion referrals.
In my city we have a CPC not to far from where I grew up. There is a neon sign hang up in the front window advertising "Free Pregnancy Tests"- it isn't a health center and if you are aware of CPC's you would probably come to the conclusion that this is one after spending a few moments on their web site. Some key clues to this is they do not mention abortion except in the case of "post-abortion support." The counseling they offer includes the term "spiritual" and they include abstinence education in their list of resources as well as free maternity and baby clothes. Naral Pro-Choice has a campaign geared towards exposing CPC's. Follow the link above to go to there main page on CPC's.
Women who end up in CPC's are lied to and intimidated into being convinced that they should continue their pregnancies no matter what. In any and all circumstances. If you watch the first video clip on the page above you can hear a training from anti-choice activist Abby Johnson instructing CPC workers on how to get women into their centers by giving the impression that they are entering an abortion clinic. Johnson states "We want to appear neutral on the outside. The best call, the best client you could ever get is one that THINKS they're walking into an abortion clinic." If this isn't deception, I don't know what is. Other comments by Johnson indicates that the goal of CPC's is to deceive women into thinking that they are being given advice from professionals and or medically trained and licensed individuals- "We want to look professional. We want to look business like and yeah we do, we do kinda want to look medical." Johnson goes on to explain how the staffers of CPC's should offer free ultrasounds to women who call asking if the centers provide abortion services because in order to obtain an abortion they will have to get an ultrasound anyway as part of the process. Once the women come into the centers they are then further manipulated into thinking they are receiving medically accurate information.
Another video shows a women entering a CPC in Louisville, KY. for information about her options and how she is given completely false information. A few examples: "I can tell you that everybody that has done it (had an abortion) has regretted it."
"It can make you infertile."
The counselor tells the young women "her own" story and how she cannot have children now because of her abortion. She says, "What happened to me is they did it. And it, and the fetus was still inside of me and they had to do it again." When the women asks her if this happens a lot she replies, "It can happen. It's very common."
The worst part about CPC's is that they feel that their manipulation and coercive techniques are entirely justifiable. That they are blatantly lying to women is not their concern. Women who enter these centers are not independent autonomous human beings to the people who staff these places- they are simply impregnated women who cannot be trusted to be given accurate information so that they may make their own decisions. The health and well being of the mother is not something that is of concern. The greater mission of CPC's is forcing their beliefs and values on everyone who enters the centers by whatever means necessary; including giving completely false and often damaging "information" to women who are often in vulnerable positions and just want to be told the truth.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Steubenville Ohio Keeps Coach on Team
Wonder how important high school football is to Steubenville, Ohio?
While the two football players accused of Rape were found guilty it seems that the teams Coach was signed on to another 2 years.
Bitch Magazine
Atlantic Wire
While the two football players accused of Rape were found guilty it seems that the teams Coach was signed on to another 2 years.
Bitch Magazine
Atlantic Wire
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Texts From Hillary Wins Tumblr of the Year!
If you haven't experienced Texts from Hillary I strongly suggest that you check it out asap.
Texts from Hillary won Tumblr of the Year as decided by The Shorty Awards
The creators of the Texts from Hillary site Stacey Lambe and Adam Smith said: "Thanks to everyone for their endorsement of our future jobs on Hillary's 2016 campaign."
Here's hoping!
Texts from Hillary won Tumblr of the Year as decided by The Shorty Awards
The creators of the Texts from Hillary site Stacey Lambe and Adam Smith said: "Thanks to everyone for their endorsement of our future jobs on Hillary's 2016 campaign."
Here's hoping!
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Hollaback! Again (or This Time There's Pictures)
I wrote about the anti-street harassment organization Hollaback forever ago in one of my first posts (CLICK HERE).
The group Hollaback Philly has recently succeeded in raising $7,000 to fund a new comic book. Bitch.com reports that the comics creator "Erin Filson wrote and illustrated the book that follows three main characters, each of whom has their own color that's used only on their pages of the story. Two girls who get harassed are red and yellow, and the comic also follows a boy in blue who learns how to be a proactive bystander."
The Hollaback Philly blog has a ton of information on women and comic books on their site and you can follow the whole campaign from the beginning.
The harassment of women is not a rarity at Comic Cons and the group will be selling the book at the one in San Diego. Check out this video from the "reality" show Comic book Men. It is a compilation of the shows most blatant sexist repertoire and it ain't pretty DC WOMEN KICKING ASS.
The group Hollaback Philly has recently succeeded in raising $7,000 to fund a new comic book. Bitch.com reports that the comics creator "Erin Filson wrote and illustrated the book that follows three main characters, each of whom has their own color that's used only on their pages of the story. Two girls who get harassed are red and yellow, and the comic also follows a boy in blue who learns how to be a proactive bystander."
The Hollaback Philly blog has a ton of information on women and comic books on their site and you can follow the whole campaign from the beginning.
The harassment of women is not a rarity at Comic Cons and the group will be selling the book at the one in San Diego. Check out this video from the "reality" show Comic book Men. It is a compilation of the shows most blatant sexist repertoire and it ain't pretty DC WOMEN KICKING ASS.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Sympathetic Perpetrators in Steubenville, Ohio.
UPDATE ON STEUBENVILLE OHIO
Click on the link above for my first post on Steubenville. I strongly recommend reading it first.
The two high school students accused of raping a sixteen year old in Steubenville, Ohio were found guilty in a juvenile court yesterday. The judge found that both boys used their fingers to penetrate the girl while she was so drunk that she lacked the cognitive ability to give her consent for sex. A picture that was circulated among classmates later that day showed the victim naked and passed out. The use of text messaging, twitter, you tube and other social media outlets by teens who witnessed the events made national news and exposed the chilling reality that no one who saw what was going on tried to do anything to help the victim. Steubenville Ohio's Big Red football team also found itself coming under a microscope when it was revealed that the players were attending a party at one of the assistant coaches the evening on the assault and that the players often received preferential treatment and were hailed as local celebrities in the small economically depressed Ohio town.
The most disturbing part of the after math of the verdicts has been the way that certain media outlets have chosen to respond so sympathetically to the perpetrators. CNN took to the air openly grieving about the verdict ruining the "promising" lives of Ma'lik Raymond and Trent Mays. Richmond (16) received a one year sentence and Mays (17) received a two year sentence. They could both be held until the age of 21 under the discretion of the State Dept. of Youth Services.
CNN's Poppy Harlow started off reporting the verdict and stated that it was "incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believe their life fell apart."
CNN's Candy Crowley said nothing about the victim and after stressing the difficult and emotional displays by the two boys after the verdict was read. She asked the asinine question: “What’s the lasting effect though on two young men being found guilty juvenile court of rape essentially?”
She clearly isn't asking about the effects the verdict has on the victim. She tries to minimize the situation entirely as if the court should have told the two boys not to do it again and let them off the hook. These boys acted deplorably and no one should've ever tried to make excuses for their actions. Not the town, the school, the coaches, the media- no one. These boys acted on their own accord and if their "promising lives" are "ruined" they have only themselves to blame. This girl was friends with these boys- this is how they treated a friend.
Crowley isn't the only one who saw fit to sympathize with the two boys- before the trial began, Good Morning America featured a story on the case focusing on all of the facts you "haven't heard" and it basically retells the whole story with plenty of attention paid to the "honors student" Mays and wrong-side-of-the-tracks Richmond. The piece ends on a sympathetic note, almost bemoaning the fact that the two teens "face incarceration in a detention center until their 21st birthdays and the almost-certain demise of their dreams of playing football."The Atlantic Wire.
But back to CNN- Crowley sets a dangerous tone in her sympathizing with the rapists and then goes even further by throwing out the assumption that holding the boys responsible for their actions is just silly. Why even punish these boys at all? They are young football players and this messy incident shouldn't follow them into their adult lives. She asks: What are the lasting effects?
Perhaps the next time they are "partying" they will opt not to sexually assault anyone.
Perhaps being registered sex offenders will prevent other women from being raped when these boys are let out of.
Perhaps other teenage boys will see that the legal system will hold them responsible for their actions and choose not to grossly and indecently engage in illegal sex acts with incapacitated friends and take pictures of it.
So why is it so sad to CNN and others that these boys are being held responsible for their actions? Is it because the young women was drunk and therefore partially responsible for being paraded around naked and photographed? Is it because football is so valuable in this society and victim blaming so prevalent that we can't stand to see such fine specimens/athletes being black listed at such a young age by an intoxicated teenager? Or is it because the incident could have been prevented if someone had the courage to call attention to and stop the attack from the onset? Their are many more guilty parties involved here then Trent Mays and Ma'Lik Richmond and the lasting effects we should be talking about is how to stop the type of behavior that facilitated the horrible events to occur in the first place.
Click on the link above for my first post on Steubenville. I strongly recommend reading it first.
The two high school students accused of raping a sixteen year old in Steubenville, Ohio were found guilty in a juvenile court yesterday. The judge found that both boys used their fingers to penetrate the girl while she was so drunk that she lacked the cognitive ability to give her consent for sex. A picture that was circulated among classmates later that day showed the victim naked and passed out. The use of text messaging, twitter, you tube and other social media outlets by teens who witnessed the events made national news and exposed the chilling reality that no one who saw what was going on tried to do anything to help the victim. Steubenville Ohio's Big Red football team also found itself coming under a microscope when it was revealed that the players were attending a party at one of the assistant coaches the evening on the assault and that the players often received preferential treatment and were hailed as local celebrities in the small economically depressed Ohio town.
The most disturbing part of the after math of the verdicts has been the way that certain media outlets have chosen to respond so sympathetically to the perpetrators. CNN took to the air openly grieving about the verdict ruining the "promising" lives of Ma'lik Raymond and Trent Mays. Richmond (16) received a one year sentence and Mays (17) received a two year sentence. They could both be held until the age of 21 under the discretion of the State Dept. of Youth Services.
CNN's Poppy Harlow started off reporting the verdict and stated that it was "incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believe their life fell apart."
CNN's Candy Crowley said nothing about the victim and after stressing the difficult and emotional displays by the two boys after the verdict was read. She asked the asinine question: “What’s the lasting effect though on two young men being found guilty juvenile court of rape essentially?”
She clearly isn't asking about the effects the verdict has on the victim. She tries to minimize the situation entirely as if the court should have told the two boys not to do it again and let them off the hook. These boys acted deplorably and no one should've ever tried to make excuses for their actions. Not the town, the school, the coaches, the media- no one. These boys acted on their own accord and if their "promising lives" are "ruined" they have only themselves to blame. This girl was friends with these boys- this is how they treated a friend.
Crowley isn't the only one who saw fit to sympathize with the two boys- before the trial began, Good Morning America featured a story on the case focusing on all of the facts you "haven't heard" and it basically retells the whole story with plenty of attention paid to the "honors student" Mays and wrong-side-of-the-tracks Richmond. The piece ends on a sympathetic note, almost bemoaning the fact that the two teens "face incarceration in a detention center until their 21st birthdays and the almost-certain demise of their dreams of playing football."The Atlantic Wire.
But back to CNN- Crowley sets a dangerous tone in her sympathizing with the rapists and then goes even further by throwing out the assumption that holding the boys responsible for their actions is just silly. Why even punish these boys at all? They are young football players and this messy incident shouldn't follow them into their adult lives. She asks: What are the lasting effects?
Perhaps the next time they are "partying" they will opt not to sexually assault anyone.
Perhaps being registered sex offenders will prevent other women from being raped when these boys are let out of.
Perhaps other teenage boys will see that the legal system will hold them responsible for their actions and choose not to grossly and indecently engage in illegal sex acts with incapacitated friends and take pictures of it.
So why is it so sad to CNN and others that these boys are being held responsible for their actions? Is it because the young women was drunk and therefore partially responsible for being paraded around naked and photographed? Is it because football is so valuable in this society and victim blaming so prevalent that we can't stand to see such fine specimens/athletes being black listed at such a young age by an intoxicated teenager? Or is it because the incident could have been prevented if someone had the courage to call attention to and stop the attack from the onset? Their are many more guilty parties involved here then Trent Mays and Ma'Lik Richmond and the lasting effects we should be talking about is how to stop the type of behavior that facilitated the horrible events to occur in the first place.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
12 Weeks in Arkansas
It's official all right, the state of Arkansas now has the most restrictive abortion law- allowing abortions until only the 12th week of pregnancy. This policy goes into effect in 90 days and will hopefully be ruled as unconstitutional as the federal law allows abortions into the 24th week or until the fetus is viable outside of the womb.
Governor Mike Bebe vetoed the law citing its blatant unconstitutionality but his veto was overridden in the states house.
NPR
New York Times
Governor Mike Bebe vetoed the law citing its blatant unconstitutionality but his veto was overridden in the states house.
NPR
New York Times
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The Onion Goes Too Far (or The C Word)
I'm not a fan of the word Cunt.
Inga Musico wrote a book in 1998 called Cunt: A Declaration of Independence. I hated it. That's another blog topic.
This Sunday, satirical masters at the Onion put out a tweet calling the 9 year old Best Actress Nominee Quvenzhane Wallis a Cunt. The tweet read, in part: "Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhane Wallis is kind of a ... "
Calling a 9 year old girl a cunt isn't funny. Where is the satire in that?
The post was removed an hour later and The Onion issued an apology.
Wendell Pierce called for The Onion to identify the author of the tweet- "Let him defend that abhorrent verbal attack on a child. You call it humor I call it horrendous."
For a really great response to this inexplicable tweet check out this post from Bitch Media contributor T.F. Charlton.
The Onion's hurtful Tweet
Inga Musico wrote a book in 1998 called Cunt: A Declaration of Independence. I hated it. That's another blog topic.
This Sunday, satirical masters at the Onion put out a tweet calling the 9 year old Best Actress Nominee Quvenzhane Wallis a Cunt. The tweet read, in part: "Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhane Wallis is kind of a ... "
Calling a 9 year old girl a cunt isn't funny. Where is the satire in that?
The post was removed an hour later and The Onion issued an apology.
Wendell Pierce called for The Onion to identify the author of the tweet- "Let him defend that abhorrent verbal attack on a child. You call it humor I call it horrendous."
For a really great response to this inexplicable tweet check out this post from Bitch Media contributor T.F. Charlton.
The Onion's hurtful Tweet
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
I Heart Bitch Magazine
There's nothing like a new issue of Bitch Magazine to get rid of my bloggers block. Trust me, it isn't that there aren't enough topics out there- more like there are SO many topics that deserve SO much critical analysis that some of them can be too daunting for me to take on when I'm trying to maintain new posts weekly and give every subject the justice it deserves.
Bitch: A Feminist Response to Pop Culture has been around for awhile now. The first issue was published in 1996! As the tag line says the magazine focuses on the way women are being portrayed in the media RIGHT NOW. With the overwhelming amount of issues effecting women- Bitch offers a crucial perspective from the very individuals experiencing them through media outlets. My personal favorite is the books section. Some titles from this new issue: Hip Hop Apsara:Ghosts Past and Present by Anne Elizabeth Moore, After Pornified: How Women are Transforming Pornography and Why it Really Matters by Anne G Sabo and Israel/Palestine And the Queer International by Sarah Schulman.
I suggest joining their "Bee Hive" and giving them a $10-$15 monthly contribution- you get the year free (4 issues) and you are supporting Feminist media!
CHECK IT OUT
Bitch: A Feminist Response to Pop Culture has been around for awhile now. The first issue was published in 1996! As the tag line says the magazine focuses on the way women are being portrayed in the media RIGHT NOW. With the overwhelming amount of issues effecting women- Bitch offers a crucial perspective from the very individuals experiencing them through media outlets. My personal favorite is the books section. Some titles from this new issue: Hip Hop Apsara:Ghosts Past and Present by Anne Elizabeth Moore, After Pornified: How Women are Transforming Pornography and Why it Really Matters by Anne G Sabo and Israel/Palestine And the Queer International by Sarah Schulman.
I suggest joining their "Bee Hive" and giving them a $10-$15 monthly contribution- you get the year free (4 issues) and you are supporting Feminist media!
CHECK IT OUT
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
I'm Your Present (or Cuts of Meat Dress)
Well it's almost Valentines Day. Those of you with significant others may very well be scrambling to come up with something to give your sweetheart. I can't tell you what a Feminist wants for Valentines Day (you should probably just ask her) BUT, I thought this would be the perfect time to share something I stumbled upon recently that would not make a good Valentines gift.
I do a lot of collages so I am constantly going through old magazines to cut out pictures and the like. While flipping through an old issue of Bust magazine, something in the advertising section jumped out at me. It's called "Cuts of Meat Dress (available in many different colors). Pretty self explanatory. At first I thought that maybe I was missing something about the product that could make my initial reaction of disgust a moot point. But I wasn't and so it didn't. I logged on to Etsy to check out the sellers shop and get a better feel for the space that houses this cut of meat dress. The store/seller is called imyourpresent which I thought was fitting.
I honestly don't get why anyone would want to own this dress. I don't think it's funny or bold or that it makes a statement. At incrediblethings.com the dress is reviewed by Jenni Chasteen who says "The Creme Cuts of Meat dress lets you show off your rack and rump while making a bold (albeit funny) statement that you’re more than just the sum of your parts."
Does it? I don't see how.
One women posted this on her pinterest page under "Things I'm not too fond of."
I'm truly surprised that so many women seem to think that it's a great piece of clothing to wear. I mean- out in public. One recent buyer posted in the feedback: "I now have 3 versions of this dress. I love it so much!"
Not surprisingly the website Meat,Beer and Babes describes the dress like this- "Perfect for the guy who wants a certain piece of meat. The dress is made from light pink jersey and printed with a candy pink shade of ink."
I immediately thought of the post I wrote last Fall entitled Porno For PETA.
Take a look at a PETA campaign ad from several years back here. We can go into the horribleness that is PETA's sexist advertising more another time but think on it for a second while I make my point.
Labeling women's bodies as if they are cuts of meat is gross. It feeds into the dangerous stereotype that women are animalistic beings rather than human beings. What PETA's ad tries to do is make the viewer have an Aha! moment connecting animal meat with women's bodies- seeing how wrong it is to eat our fellow animal and thus has the viewer vowing to never eat another cheeseburger again. But does it have this effect? More likely the viewer is geared towards pairing meat/eating meat with sex and we all know how well sex sells. Diagram a mans body into cuts of meat and the effect changes.
I can't resist- to further disgust yourself with PETA's hatred of human female animals click here.
In conclusion, I have to give this dress a definite thumbs down. Women don't need help isolating and exploiting their "racks, rumps, ribs or shanks"- we already have plenty of that going on without dressing the part for it.
I do a lot of collages so I am constantly going through old magazines to cut out pictures and the like. While flipping through an old issue of Bust magazine, something in the advertising section jumped out at me. It's called "Cuts of Meat Dress (available in many different colors). Pretty self explanatory. At first I thought that maybe I was missing something about the product that could make my initial reaction of disgust a moot point. But I wasn't and so it didn't. I logged on to Etsy to check out the sellers shop and get a better feel for the space that houses this cut of meat dress. The store/seller is called imyourpresent which I thought was fitting.
I honestly don't get why anyone would want to own this dress. I don't think it's funny or bold or that it makes a statement. At incrediblethings.com the dress is reviewed by Jenni Chasteen who says "The Creme Cuts of Meat dress lets you show off your rack and rump while making a bold (albeit funny) statement that you’re more than just the sum of your parts."
Does it? I don't see how.
One women posted this on her pinterest page under "Things I'm not too fond of."
I'm truly surprised that so many women seem to think that it's a great piece of clothing to wear. I mean- out in public. One recent buyer posted in the feedback: "I now have 3 versions of this dress. I love it so much!"
Not surprisingly the website Meat,Beer and Babes describes the dress like this- "Perfect for the guy who wants a certain piece of meat. The dress is made from light pink jersey and printed with a candy pink shade of ink."
I immediately thought of the post I wrote last Fall entitled Porno For PETA.
Take a look at a PETA campaign ad from several years back here. We can go into the horribleness that is PETA's sexist advertising more another time but think on it for a second while I make my point.
Labeling women's bodies as if they are cuts of meat is gross. It feeds into the dangerous stereotype that women are animalistic beings rather than human beings. What PETA's ad tries to do is make the viewer have an Aha! moment connecting animal meat with women's bodies- seeing how wrong it is to eat our fellow animal and thus has the viewer vowing to never eat another cheeseburger again. But does it have this effect? More likely the viewer is geared towards pairing meat/eating meat with sex and we all know how well sex sells. Diagram a mans body into cuts of meat and the effect changes.
I can't resist- to further disgust yourself with PETA's hatred of human female animals click here.
In conclusion, I have to give this dress a definite thumbs down. Women don't need help isolating and exploiting their "racks, rumps, ribs or shanks"- we already have plenty of that going on without dressing the part for it.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Roe v. Wade Turns Forty
Today marks the fortieth anniversary of the US Supreme Courts ruling on the case of Roe v. Wade.
The good news is that a recent poll by NBC/WSJ shows that the majority of Americans think that abortion should remain legal. This Washington Post article discusses the finer points of the poll which contains many interesting findings. One in particular that struck a chord with me was the majority of those under 30 did not know what Roe was about. A disappointing reality for certain but this does show the prevalence of the court case diminishing as time goes on. This could be a positive indication that the time when abortion was not legal is becoming less and less of a reality. Of course I am reminded of that tricky phrase about those not learning from the past being doomed to repeat it.
Another important point is that 74% of those who support overturning Roe v. Wade ranked the issue as critical where as only 31% of Roe supporters called the issue critical. This demonstrates the intensity of anti-choice supporters and how fiercely they feel towards the case of Roe v. Wade even after 40 years.
The work ahead is clearly about keeping abortion not only legal but actually available to women. More and more restrictions are being put in place to prevent those women who seek the procedure from obtaining them without enormous obstacles.
For anyone wanting to learn more about the landmark victory for women in the case of Roe v. Wade, I strongly encourage you to read Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars by Cynthia Gorney. There is no other text that puts forth a truly unbiased occurrence of the years leading up to and immediately following the case of Roe v. Wade.
The good news is that a recent poll by NBC/WSJ shows that the majority of Americans think that abortion should remain legal. This Washington Post article discusses the finer points of the poll which contains many interesting findings. One in particular that struck a chord with me was the majority of those under 30 did not know what Roe was about. A disappointing reality for certain but this does show the prevalence of the court case diminishing as time goes on. This could be a positive indication that the time when abortion was not legal is becoming less and less of a reality. Of course I am reminded of that tricky phrase about those not learning from the past being doomed to repeat it.
Another important point is that 74% of those who support overturning Roe v. Wade ranked the issue as critical where as only 31% of Roe supporters called the issue critical. This demonstrates the intensity of anti-choice supporters and how fiercely they feel towards the case of Roe v. Wade even after 40 years.
The work ahead is clearly about keeping abortion not only legal but actually available to women. More and more restrictions are being put in place to prevent those women who seek the procedure from obtaining them without enormous obstacles.
For anyone wanting to learn more about the landmark victory for women in the case of Roe v. Wade, I strongly encourage you to read Articles of Faith: A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars by Cynthia Gorney. There is no other text that puts forth a truly unbiased occurrence of the years leading up to and immediately following the case of Roe v. Wade.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
A Dangerous Perception (India Gang Rape)
A word of caution on this post. As hard as it may be to write about this incident, I find that the intensity of the situation only furthers its need to be discussed widely and written about critically. I have been thinking about this since it happened in December and I have struggled with it-there is much more to the story than I have been able to convey.
Cara
On December 16th in New Delhi, India, a 23 year old med student named Jyoti Singh Pandey and a male friend boarded what they thought was a public bus to go home after watching a movie with friends. This was not a public bus but an off duty vehicle being driven by a group of friends. The bus contained 6 men (including the driver) who were out joyriding. The five men harassed the two and began attacking Pandey- when her male friend attempted to intervene he was beaten and knocked unconscious. The five passengers then took turns beating and raping this young women while the bus continued to drive. She was savagely beaten with and repeatedly penetrated with a rusty iron rod. After the beating the five men stripped the couple and threw them out of the bus. The driver then attempted to back over Pandey in order to prevent her from identifying them but the male friend was able to pull her out of the way.
When found on the side of the road, she was brought to the hospital where she received emergency medical attention and Doctors found that only 5% of her intestines intact. The rusty iron rod inserted into her vaginally was removed with so much force that the act also brought out her intestines. One of her accused attackers who is reportedly 17 is said to have raped her twice and removed her intestines with his hands.
Jyoti Singh Pandey survived for nearly two-weeks after the attack but eventually succumbed to her injuries and died on Dec.29th. After widespread protests from the people of India, the government promised to expedite the case and in general provide protection for the women of India. The proper handling of rape and sexual assault cases are notoriously lacking in India and the police departments are often accused of corruption and in some cases even rape themselves.
Incredibly troubling, but not surprising was how quickly this terrible vicious crime was made by some to be the victims fault. In a culture where women are still treated as second class citizens the prevalence of sexual assault is ridiculously high. Reported rape cases have surged more than tenfold over the past 40 years- from 2,487 in 1971 to 24,206 in 2011, according to official figures. New Delhi alone reported 572 rapes last year and more than 600 in 2012. Keep in mind that those reported are thought to be a mere 10% of estimated rapes and assaults that happen in India.
Unfortunately, victim blaming is prevalent in every country and in most cases of sexual assault. This vicious, horrible incident is no exception. A prominent religious leader Asaram Bapu, came out openly and said the attack was the victims fault. It is reported that he said “Those who were at fault [of the gang-rape] were drunk." He stated “She should have called them [her rapists] brothers, fallen at their feet and pleaded for mercy. Had she said, ‘I am a weak woman, you are my brothers,’ such brutality would not have happened.”
The lawyers for several of the accused have indicated that same mentality of victim blaming as a defense. For being out in public at night with her boyfriend.
I attempt to be as eloquent as possible in my writing but there are times when I find that I must speak plainly. This is one of those times. Are you fucking kidding me? Really? A women is bludgeoned, raped with a rusty metal rod inserted and removed so violently and so deeply that it ripped out her fucking intestines and this man of so called religion has the audacity to claim her at fault for any of this- and that she could have prevented it if she pleaded for mercy???????
By using the logic behind victim blaming I don't think it's a far stretch to point out that this is not too far off from saying that by the very act of being alive as a women is inviting rape. When women are held responsible for the inhumane torture and violations brought upon them by men it is such obvious societal manipulation that it can only be described as misogyny. There are few better examples than victim blaming than what this man and those attorneys are claiming.
Manohar Lal Sharma, a lawyer representing the bus driver, the bus driver's brother, and another man on the bus said "he has never seen a respectable lady raped in India."
This is the typical attitude held by men in India (and around the world). I am not speaking in absolutes to condemn every male in India or the world- but only to express what is commonly thought of about women who experience sexual abuse in any and all forms. This is what people really think. This is a dangerous perception- perhaps the most dangerous of perceptions.
A complete rewiring of the human mentality may be in order for this all too frequent occurrence to become extinct. The victim is the victim and rape is a horrible crime. In such instances like the situation in India one must ask themselves- why do these things happen? How can we prevent rape?
For one thing, the mentality behind everyone's understanding of unwanted sexual attention needs to be recognized for what it is. Abuse- plain and simple. Rape victims cannot be blamed for being raped. The issue of consent is not confusing as it can be made out to be (she was flirting with me and had on a mini skirt therefore she is partially to blame for me attacking her). As for alcohol involvement- if someone is too drunk to say "yes, I would like to engage in sexual relations with you," then you shouldn't have sex with that person.
I last wrote about Stuebenville, Ohio and the sexual assault of a 16 year old girl who was drunk to the point of being unconscious and then- stripped naked, urinated on and penetrated by two high school football players all while being photographed and videotaped by witnesses and passerby's. The attorney for one of the accused has indicated that the girls "provocative" twitter pictures will be used to show she had a particular pattern of behavior.
I am not comparing the cases of these two gang rapes in any other way than to demonstrate how prevalent victim blaming is. In both cases the victim is blamed for somehow provoking their own attacks.
When can someone who has been raped, tortured and humiliated be treated as a victim of a horrible crime and not a guilty participant? When we take rape seriously enough to stop making excuses for the perpetrators? When we value women as equal and whole human beings rather than second-class citizens and when we stop openly confusing women's sexuality as justification for a deplorable violent act.
The attack in India has the world paying attention to the prevalent despicable act of rape. Hopefully it will stay there and real change can trickle down to prevent the tolerated sexual abuse from continuing to damage the lives of so many women.
I drew from a plethora of resources for this post. Here are the main articles:
CNN-Leeza Mangaldas
Emirates 24/7.
International Business Times.
The New York times.
I did also utilize the Wikipedia article for the New Delhi gang rape case because it contains 130 citations and other references used to compile it.
Cara
On December 16th in New Delhi, India, a 23 year old med student named Jyoti Singh Pandey and a male friend boarded what they thought was a public bus to go home after watching a movie with friends. This was not a public bus but an off duty vehicle being driven by a group of friends. The bus contained 6 men (including the driver) who were out joyriding. The five men harassed the two and began attacking Pandey- when her male friend attempted to intervene he was beaten and knocked unconscious. The five passengers then took turns beating and raping this young women while the bus continued to drive. She was savagely beaten with and repeatedly penetrated with a rusty iron rod. After the beating the five men stripped the couple and threw them out of the bus. The driver then attempted to back over Pandey in order to prevent her from identifying them but the male friend was able to pull her out of the way.
When found on the side of the road, she was brought to the hospital where she received emergency medical attention and Doctors found that only 5% of her intestines intact. The rusty iron rod inserted into her vaginally was removed with so much force that the act also brought out her intestines. One of her accused attackers who is reportedly 17 is said to have raped her twice and removed her intestines with his hands.
Jyoti Singh Pandey survived for nearly two-weeks after the attack but eventually succumbed to her injuries and died on Dec.29th. After widespread protests from the people of India, the government promised to expedite the case and in general provide protection for the women of India. The proper handling of rape and sexual assault cases are notoriously lacking in India and the police departments are often accused of corruption and in some cases even rape themselves.
Incredibly troubling, but not surprising was how quickly this terrible vicious crime was made by some to be the victims fault. In a culture where women are still treated as second class citizens the prevalence of sexual assault is ridiculously high. Reported rape cases have surged more than tenfold over the past 40 years- from 2,487 in 1971 to 24,206 in 2011, according to official figures. New Delhi alone reported 572 rapes last year and more than 600 in 2012. Keep in mind that those reported are thought to be a mere 10% of estimated rapes and assaults that happen in India.
Unfortunately, victim blaming is prevalent in every country and in most cases of sexual assault. This vicious, horrible incident is no exception. A prominent religious leader Asaram Bapu, came out openly and said the attack was the victims fault. It is reported that he said “Those who were at fault [of the gang-rape] were drunk." He stated “She should have called them [her rapists] brothers, fallen at their feet and pleaded for mercy. Had she said, ‘I am a weak woman, you are my brothers,’ such brutality would not have happened.”
The lawyers for several of the accused have indicated that same mentality of victim blaming as a defense. For being out in public at night with her boyfriend.
I attempt to be as eloquent as possible in my writing but there are times when I find that I must speak plainly. This is one of those times. Are you fucking kidding me? Really? A women is bludgeoned, raped with a rusty metal rod inserted and removed so violently and so deeply that it ripped out her fucking intestines and this man of so called religion has the audacity to claim her at fault for any of this- and that she could have prevented it if she pleaded for mercy???????
By using the logic behind victim blaming I don't think it's a far stretch to point out that this is not too far off from saying that by the very act of being alive as a women is inviting rape. When women are held responsible for the inhumane torture and violations brought upon them by men it is such obvious societal manipulation that it can only be described as misogyny. There are few better examples than victim blaming than what this man and those attorneys are claiming.
Manohar Lal Sharma, a lawyer representing the bus driver, the bus driver's brother, and another man on the bus said "he has never seen a respectable lady raped in India."
This is the typical attitude held by men in India (and around the world). I am not speaking in absolutes to condemn every male in India or the world- but only to express what is commonly thought of about women who experience sexual abuse in any and all forms. This is what people really think. This is a dangerous perception- perhaps the most dangerous of perceptions.
A complete rewiring of the human mentality may be in order for this all too frequent occurrence to become extinct. The victim is the victim and rape is a horrible crime. In such instances like the situation in India one must ask themselves- why do these things happen? How can we prevent rape?
For one thing, the mentality behind everyone's understanding of unwanted sexual attention needs to be recognized for what it is. Abuse- plain and simple. Rape victims cannot be blamed for being raped. The issue of consent is not confusing as it can be made out to be (she was flirting with me and had on a mini skirt therefore she is partially to blame for me attacking her). As for alcohol involvement- if someone is too drunk to say "yes, I would like to engage in sexual relations with you," then you shouldn't have sex with that person.
I last wrote about Stuebenville, Ohio and the sexual assault of a 16 year old girl who was drunk to the point of being unconscious and then- stripped naked, urinated on and penetrated by two high school football players all while being photographed and videotaped by witnesses and passerby's. The attorney for one of the accused has indicated that the girls "provocative" twitter pictures will be used to show she had a particular pattern of behavior.
I am not comparing the cases of these two gang rapes in any other way than to demonstrate how prevalent victim blaming is. In both cases the victim is blamed for somehow provoking their own attacks.
When can someone who has been raped, tortured and humiliated be treated as a victim of a horrible crime and not a guilty participant? When we take rape seriously enough to stop making excuses for the perpetrators? When we value women as equal and whole human beings rather than second-class citizens and when we stop openly confusing women's sexuality as justification for a deplorable violent act.
The attack in India has the world paying attention to the prevalent despicable act of rape. Hopefully it will stay there and real change can trickle down to prevent the tolerated sexual abuse from continuing to damage the lives of so many women.
I drew from a plethora of resources for this post. Here are the main articles:
CNN-Leeza Mangaldas
Emirates 24/7.
International Business Times.
The New York times.
I did also utilize the Wikipedia article for the New Delhi gang rape case because it contains 130 citations and other references used to compile it.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Steubenville Ohio
Over the last several day's I have started no less than 4 posts having to do with the Steubenville, Ohio rape case. Initially I planned to recount the story in its entirety but I have since decided that I am not up to that task and others have already done so at length. If you have somehow managed to remain in the dark about this story I highly encourage you to start with the December 16th New York Times article (click above). After that I encourage you to visit this site.
My first feeling after reading several articles about the case was not anger; I was tremendously and overwhelmingly sad. I don't care that this isn't an especially eloquent way to express this next sentiment but my second feeling was that the world we live in is an incredibly horrible fucked up place that doesn't make any sense at all. Of course I am not so naive to think that terrible people don't exist but what's worse is that people who generally aren't terrible so frequently choose to look away when it matters.
Why this situation has garnered so much attention is always incredibly discouraging. It involves Football. The fact that several teenagers stood by and watched these things happening to this girl and in some cases recorded it and photographed it is disgusting enough but some went even further and put it on social media sites. Then because there was a president of police corruption and an unwillingness of witnesses to come forward, an independent crime blogger had the presence of mind to save screen shots of what was put online before the perpetrators could erase them.
What's plain to me is that this young girl was incapable of making sound decisions, defending herself and by any and all means granting these boys consent to sexually assault and abuse her. How is that not clear to everyone? How can anyone say that this girl "deserved" this? How can defense attorneys use that same bullshit line that the boys behavior was justified because the girl, before that night in August, had posted provocative comments and photographs on her Twitter account???? Like what? I hope to be sexually assaulted while vomiting?
Victim blaming goes deep and it doesn't help when the perpetrators have the much desired skill of being able to throw a football- especially in an economically depressed has been town in Ohio where these boys provide one of the only means of entertainment and town pride.
One of the volunteer assistant coaches of the High School Football team (who is a former player) said this about the victim: “The rape was just an excuse, I think. What else are you going to tell your parents when you come home drunk like that and after a night like that? She had to make up something. Now people are trying to blow up our football program because of it.”
Yes, because your football program is so incredibly sacred that those involved in it should be excused from maintaining any sense of basic human decency.
If you'd like to learn more about the case in Steubenville, as I have merely scratched the surface, I suggest the following articles:
The Daily Beast
Time
CNN
Daily News
My first feeling after reading several articles about the case was not anger; I was tremendously and overwhelmingly sad. I don't care that this isn't an especially eloquent way to express this next sentiment but my second feeling was that the world we live in is an incredibly horrible fucked up place that doesn't make any sense at all. Of course I am not so naive to think that terrible people don't exist but what's worse is that people who generally aren't terrible so frequently choose to look away when it matters.
Why this situation has garnered so much attention is always incredibly discouraging. It involves Football. The fact that several teenagers stood by and watched these things happening to this girl and in some cases recorded it and photographed it is disgusting enough but some went even further and put it on social media sites. Then because there was a president of police corruption and an unwillingness of witnesses to come forward, an independent crime blogger had the presence of mind to save screen shots of what was put online before the perpetrators could erase them.
What's plain to me is that this young girl was incapable of making sound decisions, defending herself and by any and all means granting these boys consent to sexually assault and abuse her. How is that not clear to everyone? How can anyone say that this girl "deserved" this? How can defense attorneys use that same bullshit line that the boys behavior was justified because the girl, before that night in August, had posted provocative comments and photographs on her Twitter account???? Like what? I hope to be sexually assaulted while vomiting?
Victim blaming goes deep and it doesn't help when the perpetrators have the much desired skill of being able to throw a football- especially in an economically depressed has been town in Ohio where these boys provide one of the only means of entertainment and town pride.
One of the volunteer assistant coaches of the High School Football team (who is a former player) said this about the victim: “The rape was just an excuse, I think. What else are you going to tell your parents when you come home drunk like that and after a night like that? She had to make up something. Now people are trying to blow up our football program because of it.”
Yes, because your football program is so incredibly sacred that those involved in it should be excused from maintaining any sense of basic human decency.
If you'd like to learn more about the case in Steubenville, as I have merely scratched the surface, I suggest the following articles:
The Daily Beast
Time
CNN
Daily News
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Do We Still Need Feminism?
I asked friends for some suggestions on blog topics for the new year. One friend sent me an article to peruse entitled "Why We Don't Need Feminism".
In it the author Emily Matters talks about Feminist Scholar Wendy Brown. Brown has a book of essays called Edgework. Matters goes on to describe the collection of essays and how Edgework looks at the so-called normal or "popular" way of thinking about abortion and gay marriage with a critical eye. Her book is subtitled Critical Essays On Knowledge and Politics, and Matter's admits that the book doesn’t offer solutions or definite statements on these topics- it more encourages us to think critically about our own assumptions and go beyond or to "the edge" of our own thinking.
This article is interesting because it can be interpreted in a number of ways. On the whole my reaction was confusion upon my initial read. Matters tells the reader that Brown doesn't make many definite statements but rather suggests that thinking outside of owns usual train of thought can be beneficial (I think). Without having read any of the text I don't know for sure what Matters considers a definitive statement but she goes on to make a bunch of them in her article. She doesn't attempt to mirror the thoughts of Brown but rather calls the collection of essays an inspiration for her own response to the idea that we don't need Feminism.
She states that the wage gap is Feminist propaganda, Men rape because they are inherently violent and aggressive and women choose careers that pay less because of their inherent kindness and patient nature. Also, we need less femininity and more masculinity in order for progress to be made in culture and civilization.
These statements aren't elaborated upon very much and where they are seems to add to the articles general muddled feeling. The writer makes statements as facts- cites a study or New York times op-ed and moves on to the next statement. I want more from her in some areas but not anything from others.
For example: "Throwing a ball like a girl is lame. That’s why most people, male or female, prefer to watch the NBA over the WNBA. Aggression, intensity make sports more interesting and captivating."
I'm not sure how to interpret the latter intellectual statement with the former name calling ("You play ball like a Girl"). I mean, what? I'm sure there is more to the NBA vs. WNBA comparison besides the generalization that men are better at entertaining us in the sports arena. Some elements to consider might be the commercialization of the NBA, money and sponsorship disparities, environmental and societal elements that push boys towards sports and girls towards baking and sewing- just to name a few.
Matters also tells us- "we don’t need to balk at traditionally feminine values in the United States like they do in China. But effeminate nations of love and equality don’t produce companies like Google or Apple." It's interesting to me that Matters doesn't talk about what Feminism is besides that it involves being pro-abortion and supporting gay marriage, which she says is by far the cultural norm now. Google and Apple are what we should strive for in a society and all that girly crap isn't doing anyone any favor
So- why don't we need Feminism? Well, Matters gives us the skimpiest text in this section. Besides her calling Feminism outdated she calls for a new paradigm to move forward with- "One that is not so much a collective movement, but a way of living which respects and integrates men, women, and every beautiful and complex variation in-between."
She thinks women self select lower paying jobs because they don't care about money as much as men do. Men are bad- but that is good for society as a whole because otherwise we'd be like China and since Feminism doesn't stop rape then what's all the fuss about?
There is little here in the way of critical thinking in my opinion. Some controversial thoughts here and there but not much to chew on. Oh, and that collective movement integrating all of these beautiful variations of men and women? Well, that just seems like a cop out to me.
In it the author Emily Matters talks about Feminist Scholar Wendy Brown. Brown has a book of essays called Edgework. Matters goes on to describe the collection of essays and how Edgework looks at the so-called normal or "popular" way of thinking about abortion and gay marriage with a critical eye. Her book is subtitled Critical Essays On Knowledge and Politics, and Matter's admits that the book doesn’t offer solutions or definite statements on these topics- it more encourages us to think critically about our own assumptions and go beyond or to "the edge" of our own thinking.
This article is interesting because it can be interpreted in a number of ways. On the whole my reaction was confusion upon my initial read. Matters tells the reader that Brown doesn't make many definite statements but rather suggests that thinking outside of owns usual train of thought can be beneficial (I think). Without having read any of the text I don't know for sure what Matters considers a definitive statement but she goes on to make a bunch of them in her article. She doesn't attempt to mirror the thoughts of Brown but rather calls the collection of essays an inspiration for her own response to the idea that we don't need Feminism.
She states that the wage gap is Feminist propaganda, Men rape because they are inherently violent and aggressive and women choose careers that pay less because of their inherent kindness and patient nature. Also, we need less femininity and more masculinity in order for progress to be made in culture and civilization.
These statements aren't elaborated upon very much and where they are seems to add to the articles general muddled feeling. The writer makes statements as facts- cites a study or New York times op-ed and moves on to the next statement. I want more from her in some areas but not anything from others.
For example: "Throwing a ball like a girl is lame. That’s why most people, male or female, prefer to watch the NBA over the WNBA. Aggression, intensity make sports more interesting and captivating."
I'm not sure how to interpret the latter intellectual statement with the former name calling ("You play ball like a Girl"). I mean, what? I'm sure there is more to the NBA vs. WNBA comparison besides the generalization that men are better at entertaining us in the sports arena. Some elements to consider might be the commercialization of the NBA, money and sponsorship disparities, environmental and societal elements that push boys towards sports and girls towards baking and sewing- just to name a few.
Matters also tells us- "we don’t need to balk at traditionally feminine values in the United States like they do in China. But effeminate nations of love and equality don’t produce companies like Google or Apple." It's interesting to me that Matters doesn't talk about what Feminism is besides that it involves being pro-abortion and supporting gay marriage, which she says is by far the cultural norm now. Google and Apple are what we should strive for in a society and all that girly crap isn't doing anyone any favor
So- why don't we need Feminism? Well, Matters gives us the skimpiest text in this section. Besides her calling Feminism outdated she calls for a new paradigm to move forward with- "One that is not so much a collective movement, but a way of living which respects and integrates men, women, and every beautiful and complex variation in-between."
She thinks women self select lower paying jobs because they don't care about money as much as men do. Men are bad- but that is good for society as a whole because otherwise we'd be like China and since Feminism doesn't stop rape then what's all the fuss about?
There is little here in the way of critical thinking in my opinion. Some controversial thoughts here and there but not much to chew on. Oh, and that collective movement integrating all of these beautiful variations of men and women? Well, that just seems like a cop out to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)