Danica wins

Maggie says:
I don't know much at all about cars, and I know even less about racing them. I know that in the U.S. there's Indy racing and Nascar racing, and that men in my family are Nascar fans and I am not, and that I really don't get it. I know that Indy racing is more like European Formula 1 racing, where drivers are the equivalent of playboy demigods and where races sometimes go through tiny Italian towns and cars can end up looking like that wrecked Bond car from this weekend. But that's about it.

Yet I do know about Danica Patrick, because she's the first woman to become a real competitor in either... league? (Are they called leagues? I have no idea.) And this weekend, Danica Patrick won for the first time. Hearing that, and watching the clip this weekend, I found myself incredibly excited at this accomplishment, and thrilled for her. Who knew racing could do that to me?

Danica represents so much of what's tricky about the intersection of sports and gender. I want her to be treated just like a man, and to perform on par with them through nothing but her own talent. Surely her win on Saturday was exactly that, and I do like the way racing is clean competition in that more body mass or strength doesn't seem to be advantageous. As I said, I'm thrilled for her. But...

On the road to Saturday, we've spent years watching Danica sex it up in marketing campaign after marketing campaign. She has shiny dark hair and sparkly lip gloss and great legs... but so do lots of women. Yet how many of us can do what she just did? The need for sports marketing to point out that she can compete, and she's hot, is so pervasive. I wish Danica didn't have to "go there," to be the pinup who can drive like the boys, but I wonder what another road would have looked like for her. If she wasn't willing to sex it up for ads and endorsement deals, could she be a "star" in the same way, have made enough of a living to stay in the game until she won? I have no idea, but I know that the inherent messaging of that kind of marketing is that her presence in the sport is more valuable because of what she looks like, that as women we are all what we look like. That's troubling, obviously, but what's the line? Female athletes (and no, I'm not going there with the 'is-racing-a-sport?' debate, just broadening here) have an impossible line to balance with their appearance: they're either lesbians or sex kittens. And to be fair, I'd want to look great in advertisements if I was an athlete, too... yet I definitely wouldn't appear in the 2008 IndyCar Series media guide in a bikini like Danica did. What's a girl(racer) to do?

I think back to something like the famous tennis Battle of the Sexes and I pine, in a way, for the simplicity of it. I love how pure Billie Jean King's win was, how awful Bobby Riggs was, and how King set out to win for women everywhere. And she did. Without wearing a Billie Jean King-branded sports bra and tennis skirt combo.

Is honesty easier in women-only sports? I think of the juxtaposition of the women playing golf today, where there is an enormous cross-section of women, just like in the real world. When stepping out of that role, what kind of pressure is put upon them to "represent," and what does that say about men and women regarding how we receive them? Is it fair that I love smirking at Anna Kournikova for not being great at playing tennis even though she was famous for looking great in a tennis skirt, when I know that means I also don't give Maria Sharapova enough credit as an athlete, simply because the marketing of Maria as the new Anna annoys me? That's me being unfair. It also occurs to me that maybe more than a win for women everywhere, Danica's win is a win to shut up her male critics and the men who follow the sport. And that's plenty valuable for all the other women trying to be racers right now, and for those to come.

Here's what I want to know: Now that Danica's kicked male ass and proven her skill, will we see more, say, motor oil ads with her name on them and less bikinis? Only time will tell. But Danica: you go, girl. Seriously.

Gender and consent, from Yemen to West Texas

Maggie says:
Since we're talking gender, marriage, and consent thanks to the lovely "Yearning for Zion" case, I thought it appropriate to add a face and a personality to our abstract discussions.

Meet Nojoud Muhammed Nasser, who is without a doubt one of the cutest 8-year-olds I've ever seen. But don't let Nojoud's innocent face fool you - this girl is as tough and strong as they come. Here's Nojoud's story: She lives in Yemen, where females are not especially celebrated (Yemen ranks 138 out of 140 on the list of "Best Places to be a Mother"). Despite this egregious ranking, Yemen has actually made some progress on the child marriage front: the average marrying age of girls has climbed from ten to fourteen over two generations. Given this progress, Yemen hasn't seen fit to issue a minimum age to marry as long as there is parental consent, although in 1999 they determined that marriage "contracts" could not be legally consummated until the female was "mature."

None of this helped Nojoud two months ago when her father, a mentally unstable panhandler, sold her to a 30-year-old man for marriage. Nojoud described her father's actions this way: "He beat me and told me that I must marry this man, and if I did not, I would be raped and no law and no sheikh in this country would help me." Well, the marriage happened, and shockingly, Nojoud's "husband" did not follow the law and wait until his "bride" was mature enough for sex. He raped Nojoud, repeatedly. She is eight, which is a fact that hits home when you read childlike quotes like this one: "Whenever I wanted to play in the yard, he beat me and asked me to go to the bedroom with him."

I bring Najoud up because she is, in fact, an enormous success story. Actually, she's a heroine for all of us. See, eight-year-old Najoud took herself to court - the first minor to do so in Yemini history - and sued her father and her husband for divorce, charging sexual and domestic abuse. Both men were arrested, although her father has since been released.

“I asked and begged my mother, father, and aunt to help me to get divorced," Najoud told the Yemen Times. "They answered, ‘We can do nothing. If you want you can go to court by yourself.’ So this is what I have done.”

Najoud won her case in that she is being protected and will not have to return to her husband, but it is unclear how or if the husband will be prosecuted. Charmingly, he had this to say from jail, where he is still being held: "It is not a matter of loving her, I don’t, but it’s just a challenge to her and her uncle who think that they can put me in jail and also the judge has no right to bring me here. How did she dare to complain about me?"

Najoud's case helped spur a push for additional marriage protections at the national level, but that attempt failed. In other words, nothing will prevent Najoud's little sister, all of six years old, from experiencing the same horror Najoud did.

Coming back full-circle to "Yearning for Zion," I wonder this: how different might things be if the abuse call that was placed to authorities could be authenticated? The ability to judge the sect by U.S. laws (when they do pay taxes and don't maintain their marriages are legal) would be stronger if one of their own was asking for it, just like Najoud did in Yemen. Until we get that verification, I'm afraid this feels far too much like a witch hunt, even if most of us hope those children never see the inside of that compound again. On the other hand, is waiting for one of those girls to overcome extraordinary pressures and reach out to the authorities the opposite of Big Brother - is it shamelessly negligent?

I'm really not sure. But I know that Najoud is an amazing little girl. And I hope the girls of "Yearning for Zion" have a chance to one day feel her power, too.

ps: Kudos to Jezebel for bringing my attention to Najoud's case.

Polygamy, and social responsibility to children

marjorie says...

The video segment in this ABC interview with polygamous women inside the Zion ranch is pretty fascinating. This case really brings into stark relief the question of parental rights versus those of children, and to what extent society should act to protect children.

Let's face it, this group of people is being judged based on a larger group's social norms regarding marriage and sexuality. What is and isn't abuse is debatable for many. Personally, I think it's tragic that young girls are being raised in this manner. It's pretty telling in the video clip when one woman won't answer the question asked: are 14, 15, 16 girls being married to older men? She refused to answer, at least in the clip shown. And it makes me cringe. I have a gut reaction to think that no child should be indoctrinated in the manner pursued by this group.

But is a young woman who freely chooses this lifestyle being abused simply because these values were inculcated in her from infancy? Given an answer of yes, if she never left the group over the course of her life would she ever recognize the abuse? In the face of the seeming happiness of the women shown in the video clip, I can see that my attitude is subjective, reflective perhaps of an impulse toward cultural hegemony that in theory I reject.

This particular instance is a hard one...and there are going to be some very tough legal questions for the Texas courts to deal with. It's clear to me that this group has to reject the imposition of marriage on young teenage girls in order for it to continue to exist. It's an adjustment they have to make if for no other reason than that they live under the rule of law of the United States. The teenage years are a time of growth and change, and young people need the space in which to make their own decision about what their future will look like. One of the ways that our society has decided to provide this opportunity to young women is to prevent them from being forced into marriage. And at 14, 15, 0r 16, force is what it is.

Blind White Feminism

Mikaela says:
I've had great discussions with Marjorie and others in the past about what the most meaningful divisions among us really are. Is it race? Is it class? Is it gender?

On a macro level, it's the identity politics debate that Obama and Clinton candidacies have surfaced lately.

On a micro level, it's a debate that's been playing out in fits and starts over a people of color yoga class at Out ch'Yonda.

The hubbub began when a Saturday morning yoga class went from being open to all to being explicitly for women of color. I'm pretty sure men were "excluded," too. White women who had been going were angry, upset, and rather petulant about the switch. Other white women wrote shaming emails saying that the petulant white women should pull it together and see themselves and their privilege. Women of color deserved a space where they could be themselves without being constantly in that dichotomizing space of difference. Others took up every other position on the left's spectrum.

An article posted Friday on Alternet is also written by a white woman who takes her fellow white feminists to task for consistently refusing to acknowledge and learn from their blind spots. It made for thoughtful reading, and I'm sharing it in that spirit here. I appreciated the sense of openness to new perspectives and important issues to the layers of identity possible for women, particularly in the areas of prisons, borders, and safety.

I think this is a complicated issue, and I go back and forth from feeling to rationalizing to sensing to understanding and back again. Most of all, I value that continuous journey. So like a woman!

Still, I appreciate the moments when I'm called again to re-examine my standard operating procedure, look around to see how my perspective might differ from those I consider my allies, and consider how I might adjust strategy accordingly.

The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo

marjorie says...



Today is one of those times when I wish I had HBO. Tonight's HBO documentary by Lisa Jackson, herself a survivor of a brutal gang rape, will be hard to watch I'm sure, but rape as a weapon of war is something more people need to understand. From the HBO website :

As many of the interviewees attest, systematic rape is an effective way to destroy the fabric of society. Yet those in power, as well as powerful nations like the U.S., are doing little to prevent this outrage. "Is there something about sexual violence that makes us all turn away?" asks Jackson. "In what inhuman context does rape become intentional, programmatic, a weapon of choice? Where are the voices of the women themselves? If they tell their stories, will others listen?"

Husbands=Housework?

Mikaela says:
Courtesy Slate, a new study says that having a husband means more hours of housework, whereas for men, having a wife means saving an hour of housework a week.

Note, however, that things are better now than they were 30 years ago in terms of the balance of work between wives and husbands. My inner Virgo kind of loves that everyone (except single men -- ahem) is spending at least 10 hours doing housework, despite all our "advances" in cleaning technology. Hear that, Swiffer??? I shake my fist at you, holding your amazing duster in my other hand!

Anecdotally, does the graph below hold true for you all?

Remembering why I hate Rush

Maggie says:
Since Rush Limbaugh's fall from grace with the whole drug addict thing, I've happily put him out of my mind. Sure, he can still generate a headline or two - like advising Republicans to vote for Clinton in open primaries so they can beat her in November - but whatever. How many people are really listening anymore? Yet his latest "explanation" about Democratic women takes me right back to the '90s:

"You have to understand the mindset of a lot of these feminists and women...These women have paid their dues. They've been married two or three times; they've had two or three abortions; they've done everything that feminism asked them to do. They have cut men out of their lives; they have devoted themselves to causes and careers. And this — the candidacy of Hillary Clinton — is the culmination of all of these women's efforts." - Limbaugh, yesterday on his talk show

Are there words, really?

Being schooled in Race, 2008

marjorie says...

Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama show a disturbing lack of clarity on her part about the reality of being black in America (not that I know much about it). In reaction to her, I had the interesting experience last night of a black male friend of mine who generally steadfastly maintains an apolitical stance telling me that this country never let's him forget who he his. He's a person who refuses to engage in any nerdy policy debates, and who loves nothing more than pushing me out of my serious self with a decidedly politically incorrect joke. Not to mention, he's from a military family and thinks the American flag is a beacon of freedom. I tell you these things just to get across that he's not really the type of person who's been "schooled" politically in leftist ideas. But his remarks on race and Geraldine Ferraro last night to me could have been right out of our anti-racist playbook.

I was schooled in Race on the spot, from someone who never went to any of the workshops I've been to. It was a good reminder of, well, *reality*. In a nutshell, Power and Privilege are white prerogatives in this country, and no one needs to tell him that, because he's a black man and it is simply completely obvious. So why is Ferraro trying to tell us that those two things belong to a man because he is black? Obama is right: it is absurd to suggest it given the history of this country.

I don't care how Ferraro tries to spin her comments, or even if they were indeed taken out of context. As Karlos likes to say, nothing is by chance in this campaign, and both sides jump on these opportunities. So why give such opportunities in the first place? Ferraro and Gloria Steinem need to do some soul searching. I don't really care for the "post-racial" terminology, and certainly would not be on board if the "post-gender" term also had emerged in this campaign. We clearly do not live in a world that we can typify as either. But the last thing we need to do is pit race and gender against each other, and it's horrifying that it is being done by these two bastions of the 60's feminist movement.

I also want to comment on the analysis I've seen here and there about the Mississippi results. I've heard it said that Obama only won because he got 90% of the black vote, and that this kind of support from the black community is pushing some whites to vote for Clinton. Let's be very clear: Obama got 30% of the white vote in Mississippi because the white community in Mississippi is overwhelmingly RACIST. And perhaps, just perhaps, he got 90% of the black vote because this campaign has truly galvanized some black folks for the first time in a long while, like my friend. That's a good thing.

That the analysis takes a different direction shows just how poor the national dialog about Race is in this campaign. Mississippi is arguably the most racist and reactionary state in this nation. Just like Democrats usually have to rule out certain Republican strongholds, the vast majority of us have to rule out certain enclaves of reactionaries when a candidate like Obama comes along. And it isn't a loss.

At this point, we can clearly see that Obama enjoys the support of a massive number of white voters. In other words, a decisive number of white voters in the Democratic primaries are saying they are good to go with black leadership. In terms of Race, I would say that is the salient point, and most certainly the one that is the most remarkable. That he is black does not matter. All of us, but in particular us white folks, should recognize what this represents and push back at divisive comments and actions, like those of Geraldine Ferraro, regardless of who we voted for in the primary.

Gender-splitting Spitzer

Maggie laughs:
There's a million things to discuss r.e. the Spitzer case: pure politics; the fact that we now have two black governors in the Northeast, one of whom is blind; the Wall Street angle; hypocrisy and all it entails... But here's a little sofa conversation from my homestead last night, where gender splits came out in all their funny glory:

Man: "Did you see how much those prostitutes were going for?! Up to $5,000!"

Woman: "No, I didn't notice that. Did you notice that the prostitute only weighed 105 pounds? What does that say about his relationship with his daughters?"

Spare me the spousal support

Maggie asks:

What's more cliché than the prosecutor-turned-politician cited for prostitution involvement? How about his wife standing beside him during the press conference?

Poor woman. I'm so tired of these spousal parades for public consumption. Every time this happens, we get a press conference featuring the guilty one and his wife. Or worse, his wife and the kids. Do any of us believe that she wants to be there? Does it do anyone any good for her to "stand by him" in that moment, rather than being out of the limelight smashing the hell out of something?

None of us know what goes on within relationships, true. But can't we all agree that in the aftermath of a public humiliation like this one, it's not fair to have to submit to your every expression being blasted across CNN, just because of who your husband is?

Periodically? Just say monthly, Barack

marjorie says...

Thanks to Feministing for pointing me to this clip of Barack referencing Hillary's "periodic" bouts of "feeling down." There is also an interesting debate on the Feministing post about whether or not this constitutes a sexist approach.





So what does he mean exactly? That Hillary gets crazy when she's pms'ing? My personal opinion is that it shows a latent sexism that is prevalent throughout our society, just as racism is prevalent. If he didn't say it on purpose, then it is simply a classic sexist perspective leaking to the surface. If he said it on purpose, its gender-baiting just as blatantly as any Clinton race-baiting. If you think this isn't serious, let me point you to a comment that my sister made in this post, regarding my niece, who will be voting in the March 4 primary in Texas:

"Imagine my shock when having lunch with my 20 year old daughter Lauren...talking about her getting to vote for the first time....and she comes out and says she could not vote for a woman because "they are too emotional, too compassionate" ....I was horrified..I could'nt believe what I was hearing!.......thank goodness she is voting democrat!"

It also brings to mind what SWOP intern Emma Sandoval, who is near my nieces age, had to put up with on live television from one of our school board members. He charged her with being emotional when she referenced a certain perspective as ludicrous, and this wasn't the first time I have seen him do it...he also used this language at a school board meeting.

We deserve better.

V-Day! Support the work of Enlace Comunitario

Valentine's Day became something I can get on board with when activists proclaimed it V-Day, a day to stop the violence against women.

Domestic violence, a term pointing to violence performed by an intimate partner, is a crisis for the female half of the population. New Mexico ranked 3rd in the country for Domestic Violence in 2003. Then there is sexual violence more broadly.

Celebrate Valentine's day in its traditional way, but please also take a moment to consider how domestic and sexual violence damages women and children, then do something about it.

One thing you can do is support the work of a great local organization, Enlace Comunitario. Enlace provides counseling and legal services to immigrant women seeking to end abusive domestic relationships and also supports the social justice efforts of the greater immigrant community. I know that the need for the work of Enlace far outstrips the resources. Consider making a donation.

Also check out this list of crisis and support resources in New Mexico.

Happy V-Day!

Sex toy ban update

Maggie says:
Via Alterdestiny, I received a pleasant surprise this morning when checking in with all my favorite blogs:

Court overturns Texas ban on sex toys

You might remember back in March 2006 when I got pretty over-heated (too early for that pun?) writing about the wave of sex toy bans going through state legislatures with alarming passage rates. To me, nothing could be more indicative of damaging gender politics than legislation banning the sale of devices that hurt no one and exist purely for women's pleasure.

March 2006: Our right to bear batteries

But rejoice! In my state anyway, such hypocrisy is no longer on the books. Are Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Mississippi next?

Hillary and the Misogynists

marjorie says...

Misogyny, of course, is alive and well in the world as it always has been, but the reaction by much of the mainstream media toward the Hillary Clinton campaign perhaps shows it more clearly to the masses. We can only hope. Feministing compiled the highlights, in case some of you have missed the unending stream:

Chelsea edition
Acronym edition
Misogyny-wear edition
Cheek-pinching edition
"Gender expert" edition
Shock collar edition
Hitchens is an asshole edition
Ironing edition
Accessories edition
Management edition
Laughing edition



And then today Feministing provides us this tidbit to remind us that we still live in a world littered with sexist pigs:

Rape: They just don't make it like they used to

"Last week, after a debate over legislation that would amend the state constitution to say that it does not guarantee the right to abortion or require funding for abortion, Tennessee state Sen. Doug Henry said,

“Rape, ladies and gentlemen, is not today what rape was. Rape, when I was learning these things, was the violation of a chaste woman, against her will, by some party not her spouse. Today it’s simply, ‘Let’s don’t go forward with this act.’ ”

Sigh.

Do I Exist?

marjorie says...

In Hollywood...Barely, thanks to Atonement and Juno.

People of Color certainly don't.

Here's the breakdown for the big Oscar prizes. I simply took the first 10 Actors in IMDB for each movie, plus the Director. And then decided to include the Screenplay category. Would love to see the race of each actor if someone has the time, but something tells me its overwhelmingly Anglo. Click on it to read it better...I'm technically challenged when it comes to making these types of things for the internet.

Pimping Petitions

Mikaela says:
I'm not really one for sharing petition drives. I very rarely mail them to people.

This one got me, though.

From Working Assets:

Big media is perverting our democratic process. The sexist coverage of Clinton's tears was prejudicial and beyond the pale. Tell them to knock it off.

I can drink to that!

Isabel Allende and the "warrior heart"

Maggie says:
This video beautifully illustrates some of the many reasons I adore Isabel Allende. She exudes more charm, passion, and compassion in a flash of her eyes than most of us can embody in a lifetime. Allende is the fullest woman I can think of: she runs the gamut from mournful mother to wild cook, from strident activist to joyful sage. And then there are her words: Paula remains for me a touchstone of beauty and emotion, and is the standard-bearer for tributes that matter.

At this conference talk, Allende starts with Sophia Loren's beauty tips and gracefully segues into the plight of international refugees, 80% of whom are women and girls. In proclaiming the "warrior hearts" of women living in poverty and at the bottom rung of familial and societal power structures, Allende reveals to us (again) her warrior heart, too.

Isabel Allende: Tales of Passion



Via Salon's Broadsheet.

Gender & Political Leadership

Mikaela says:
Oh, thank you, Slate.

Love, love, love this article.

A recent study of villages in India, who have instituted a quota of women elected officials on a council, has found:

the villages headed by women invested in more services that benefited the entire community than did those with gender-neutral elections, nearly all of which were won by men.

[from later in the article]... The greatest improvement was in drinking water, the public amenity found to be most valued by women in earlier research (PDF)—with 30 percent more taps and hand pumps. So while the female pradhans were working for the general good, they were working particularly hard to provide the services valued by their fellow women. They were also less corrupt—villagers with female-headed councils were 25 percent less likely to report having to pay bribes to access basic services like getting ration cards or receiving medical attention.

But as the opinion polls showed, for all their effectiveness, the women's governance was literally a thankless effort, with the new leaders getting lower approval ratings than their male counterparts.

[from later in the article] Despite the objective upgrades in village amenities, both men and women living in villages headed by women expressed lower satisfaction with public services [emphasis added] . This was true even for water—the level of dissatisfaction was 13 percent higher in women-led communities. In fact, there was even greater dissatisfaction about health facilities, a public service not even controlled by the local village council!
...
Countries that come closest to gender parity in government, like Sweden and Finland, are economically advanced democracies with universal health care, child care, and generous maternity and paternity leave policies. Contrast this with the list of nations with zero women in national legislatures—Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia, for example—and the pattern becomes clear: Women in government are associated with lots of good things (PDF). But the obvious problem with this sort of exercise is that Scandinavians are different from Saudis in lots of ways. Their progressive attitudes—not to mention all that free child care—may be what allows women to get elected, not the other way around.

The article suggests the disparity between effective women leaders and their unsuccessful perception is illuminated by the Harvard Business School case study of Heidi Roizen, a hard-charging Silicon Valley venture capitalist. Students described her as "overly aggressive" and undesirable to work with when presented with her article on business networking when her original name was attached as author, but not when presented the same article written by "Howard."

In repeated polls, potential voters similarly find Hillary Clinton extremely competent yet not particularly likable. ... If the experiences of India's female pradhans are any indication, even if Americans are better off after another Clinton administration, they won't line up to thank Hillary. And she may still find herself looking for a new job in 2012. When the women pradhans that came to power under the 1991 law had to compete with male candidates after their first terms in office, almost none were voted in for a second term.

As I mentioned to Marjorie this weekend, I am not looking forward to the overt, over-the-top free-for-all of women bashing that will be unleashed if Hillary wins the primary. If Obama wins, of course there will be a racist, irrational response unleashed, too. But it won't be overt. It won't be on the table. It will be in the dark shadows and hard to discuss, hard to quantify, hard to fight. For sure. But it won't be everywhere in the same way that I think the discussion of women and leadership and PMS and the red nuclear missile button will be. I'm trying to prepare myself, just in case, but ... ugh.

My main problem with Hillary, despite everything, is illustrated by the fact that I continue to call her "Hillary" when I call the other candidates by their last names. Who would ever say "John" to refer to Edwards?? No one. He doesn't even look like a John anymore. Hillary, however, can't just be Clinton because Clinton is ... I can't even think of Bill's first name anymore, he's so Clinton. She's Hillary first and Clinton second. Should we start calling her 44, just to avoid the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton debacle? I hate that she's put herself first, and us women second, in this incredibly awkward position of not even being able to offer parity in our discussion of her candidacy among others with her fucking name.

It's. Annoying. And goes back to pushing all my buttons about legacy and the elite and the oligarchy - yes, I said it, oligarchy - of political families in this country. Bleck. As Marjorie said, at least Obama will bring in a whole cadre of new political blood to the fray. To be attacked by sharks for sure, but at least they're in the water!

It certainly doesn't help me to respect her as a politician or a woman to know that her whole marriage and relationship was calculated to sling-shot "the Clintons" to the heights of the political elite. Just as it doesn't help me respect the Bush's, even knowing that Jeb is a likely contender for President in 2012. Dear lord, help us.

Who chooses among family members in this way, and how is that American on any level? In England? Sure. Here? Wasn't there some narrative about merit and bootstraps and the primacy of the individual? Didn't I read that somewhere, or hear it in some American history class during my indoctrination as a youngster?

Even if that myth is full of crap from "In the beginning" to "They all lived happily ever after," it's still a morality tale I want to vote for above, "Once upon a time in college, my future-husband and I hatched an idea, and we never looked back (oh, we had to OVERlook a lot -- all the time, in fact, but no, we never looked BACK)."

And now, even if she wins and does great things, it won't even matter. He'll still be Clinton, and the most she'll ever be is Hillary Clinton. The vilified or at least underappreciated, no matter what she does to help America. The only difference it will make is the incremental shift to making it just that much easier for the next woman president. Good lord, social evolution is painfully slow.

Social Reproduction and Abortion

marjorie says...

I'd like to introduce you all to a very good friend of mine, Jo Ann Gutierrez Bejar, who is the new communications staff person at SWOP. Jo Ann has been putting up great commentary on swopblogger and I encourage you all to have a look. I particularly liked her comments about the Supreme Court decision last week to uphold the "partial birth" abortion ban. What I appreciate most about Jo Ann's comments are her views about the preponderance of males making these reproductive rights decisions. Reproduction is largely a woman's task. Let's face it...women are the ones who bear children and who raise children, by and large. I know there are some great men out there, who are very responsible when it comes to raising children. I'm fortunate to know several of them so don't take me wrong. But its indicative that they get the praise they get for childrearing by virtue of their gender. As if they deserve special praise for it. Well, in fact, they do. Because when it really comes down to it, by the numbers, its to women that the task of social reproduction in this society falls. And it should be women who make the decisions about whether or not to send another woman to prison for terminating her pregnancy.

Isn't that what we're talking about? Criminalizing women for terminating a pregnancy? We live in a society in which criminalization is our solution to perceived social problems...has anyone noticed? Jo Ann is equally right on in her admonishment to Archbishop Sheehan to make it easier for women to have their children and raise them without living in penury: "If you really want to bless us, make concrete changes to the economic and social structures in place. This new decision to uphold this ban is not only a set back for women, it's a precedent for dictatorship."

"Dictatorship" is an interesting choice of words. If you think of the status of women historically, we have obviously been a second class gender. When it comes to individual rights and economic status, clearly the women of our families historically were subject to men for their wellbeing. Its quite evident. In stories of the fabled anglo American west, for instance, women show up as either wives or whores (and I don't think its a given that I would automatically have preferred to be a wife, frankly).

If you've read my other commentary over the years about abortion and women's rights you know that I think the women's movement suffers from an almost myopic mobilization around abortion. Most women want to have children, very much. I want to live in a society in which women don't have to make economic decisions to not have children. I want the politically engaged women out there to work just as hard for socialized childcare as they do for the right to an abortion. And I want the rightwing, and the Catholic Church, to work just as hard for socialized childcare as they do to criminalize women who choose abortion. For instance.

As a woman, I'm quite fortunate to live during the era that I do, largely due to the women's rights movement in this country which struggled for centuries to achieve some measure of equality. Abortion is just part of that package. It's about the right of women to control their destinies through control of their own bodies. For this reason, I come down squarely on the pro-choice side and understand the importance of maintaining our rights in this area. But I wish for a different battleground entirely, one in which the fight is about expanding the wellbeing of families headed by single women. That is where we truly get into questions about the value of social reproduction to our society, and by extension the unrecognized economic and social value of women's work in the home.

American Teen

She’s looking for someone to bother, she says,
belly swelling beneath pink baby-doll tee.

She points down.
This is what she’s been up to.

“School? I don’t go; I got bored.”
But now? “He works,” she says.

“I sit at home and watch tv
and call him and tell him how bored I am.

It’s
fun.”

This girl, still running from her nightmares –
still dreaming them up –

too smart for school,
not smart enough to amuse herself,

contorts history
to come full feminist circle,

balloon-sculpture
pre-feminist dream,

only this girl can’t talk at dinner parties
or cook for dinner parties

or do much
of anything at all.

Scared of what she could be
and all that she never could,

she’s chosen this store-bought life
of unhappiness pre-packaged,

the tragedy bold-printed
on the family-proof label:

Take two. Wait twenty years.
Take two more.

What is failure to her
when it all means nothing,

and the disappointment
stretching my cheeks red

just enflames the word
judgment?

I want to understand
what she wants,

but am afraid even this
will prove too much for her.

Why must she
want anything at all?

What can she be feeding her baby
when she barely asks anything of the air?

Her attitude
is bigger than she is.

She looks half an ambition away from scared,
half a lifetime away from bitter.

This girl
is America’s fertile nightmare.

When she laughs,
you can hear empty streets rattle.

Good thing
she does not care.

He works, she says,
and moves off to find someone else to bother.

Somewhere,
he readies himself for her growing anger,

the baby to take its own air,
tiny fingers pushing off against her to gain speed.

I am left empty-handed,
mid-wife to her stillborn dreams.