Citizen's Rent 2005

W is for War, not Women

On a fairly regular basis, we hear Republican leaders like Bush and Cheney defend the war in Iraq on the basis of the benefits to women there. I've posted on this before, noting that I don't buy their convenient embrace of women's rights. Well I was right to be suspicious. Just read the following statement made by a loyal member of the neocon movement.

I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible.  It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote.  I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then.  In 1900, women did not have the right to vote.  If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled.  I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there.  I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.
Former Middle East specialist for the CIA, Reuel Marc Gerecht (Meet the Press, 8/21/05)

Hmm. I wonder what kind of outcry there would be if he said "Kurds social rights aren't critical to the evolution of democracy"? Quite a loud one, I think. But here we see that the equality of women in society is seen not as a central component of democracy but as a nice add-on. Screw him and those who would comfortably allow half the population to be excluded from participating in democracy. Screw him and those who would abandon Iraqi women to the oppressive male rule of Sharia, to the loss of such fundamental rights that they can't protect themselves, own their own property, escape an abusive husband, avoid physical harm and even death for behaviors we take for granted.

Girls going to school doesn't count for much if they are subordinate citizens without the protections and rights afforded men. If women in Iraq aren't given equal rights in Iraq then any claim that we've brought democracy there is an empty one.

These guys don't value women as equal citizens, as equal human beings with the same self-evident right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that men have.

They see the rights of women as good propaganda and a negotiating point to be abandoned as necessary. Crap like this, dished out on one of the top cable news shows and minimally challenged by the other men on the show, reminds me that there's a reason the ERA never passed here, that the ERA was the incentive that brought together the social and religious conservatives. Bush can campaign with a "W is for Women" theme, but it's really for war. Not just war against terrorists - but in some ways, war against women.

As an FYI, Reuel Marc Gerecht has his conservative credentials in order. He's a neocon, serving as the Director of the Middle East Initiative at the         Project for the New American Century -- PNAC is the heart of the neocon ideological movement. He's also a resident fellow at the American         Enterprise Institute - a leading conservative think tank. He's a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard. And he's a regular talking head on cable news shows. He's got hefty academic credentials and was a CIA analyst for nine years (left in 94). And he letting us know what the neocons really think.

They're Reigning in the Weaker Sex Again

I understand that some people really believe that human life begins at conception - that a tiny mass of cells floating in a fallopian tube is an actual human being with all the rights and protections that those outside the womb have. I understand that this is why some people oppose vehemently abortion.

I try to give those who oppose abortion the benefit of the doubt. I try to read the alarms rung by pro-choice groups with a grain of salt. By doing both, I hope to avoid demonizing those who disagree with me and keep from drinking any advocacy group's kool-aid. It's generally worked pretty well.

But I'm rethinking that. I may just radicalize. Why? Because they're going after birth control.

Wisconsin has passed a bill entitled UW Birth Control Ban-AB 343. This bill prohibits University of Wisconsin campuses from prescribing, dispensing and advertising all forms of birth control and emergency contraceptives. Wisconsin State Rep. Dan LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, introduced this bill based on the belief that “dispensing birth control and emergency contraceptives leads to promiscuity.”(MNdaily.com)

Okay. I've researched the issue a bit more and here's the deal. A state assemblyman took umbrage when he discovered that there were ads at the University of Wisconsin, telling women to be sure to get emergency contraceptives before leaving for spring break. He took action and proposed Assembly Bill 343 which targets emergency contraception administered after sex - but is written in such a way that it could theoretically apply to all contraception. You see, the problem here is that emergency contraception is just a double dose of the pill - nothing unique about the medication at all. So it's tough to ban it when it's the very same thing used before sex to prevent pregnancy.

Because it's the same medication, the assemblyman was originally proposing that all oral contraceptives be banned. Hence the outrage, hoopla, and shock on the faces of 20 year old women who thought all the feminists were just old alarmists fighting battles already won. That shock was partnered with looks of pure disbelief, that this old fart, the assemblyman, actually believed that eliminating access to birth control would cause a spontaneous eruption of abstinence.

The real issue here is young women having sex when they want, with whom they want - the same issue Santorum keeps raising ad nauseum as he promotes his book. It's an outrage to these men that women are sexually independent and even (gasp) active. Santorum claims that birth control is harmful to women. And they all believe that it undermines all of society. 

I don't really get it, in the same way I don't get why gay marriage is such a huge issue to them. These politicians aren't going to enter gay marriages. And these women aren't going to have sex with the politicians (could that be the problem?). And we're not talking fifteen year olds here. We're talking about women that the law recognizes as adults. So why is it so awful if they have sex? No-one is making any distinctions about who they have sex with - one night stands, long-term boyfriends, fiances, husbands even when it comes the UW law. So the issue isn't the the context in which these women are having sex - it's that THEY'RE HAVING SEX!.

These men in power are passing laws so that girls are lied to in high school abstinence programs and  women are denied access to legal prescription drugs to prevent pregnancy once they get to college. These men might believe that their laws, limiting the rights of women, will result in  abstinent and pregnancy-free young women, but I say that Wisconsin better get ready for its baby boom. And I look forward to the day when our rights aren't proscribed by the outmoded cultural values of men our father's or grandfather's age, men who seem to think women are the weaker sex.

A curtsy to Tennessee Guerrilla Women, a new favorite blog for me,  for background info on the issue.

Republican Relativism: They Only Support Up and Down Votes Sometimes

Sen. Brownback, the conservative Senator from Kansas, has made his position very clear when it comes to the right of the President to get a simple vote on his nominees:

“All of the president’s nominees—both now and in the future—deserve a fair up or down vote, regardless of whether some members of the Senate feel they can be filibustered based on whatever they define to be extraordinary circumstances.” (Official Statement)

He made this comment in the context of discussion on judicial nominees. But he didn't say that only judicial nominees deserved a vote - he said all nominees deserved a vote.

Seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? There's no ambiguity or nuance in that statement. So why in the world has Sen. Brownback placed a hold on a Bush's nominee? Why would he prevent an up or down vote that he so clearly stated every nominee deserves?

The nominee in question here is Julie Finley. She's been nominated for the position of ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  The  OSCE is an organization of 55 member nations that focuses on security - including arms control, human rights, democratization, counter-terrorism, and economic and environmental issues.

Julie Finley is eminently qualified for this position. She's now the Trustee and Treasurer for the National Endowment for Democracy. She's also the Chairman of the Project on Transitional Democracies. She serves as Advisory Council Member for the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Brookings Institution, and the Woodrow Wilson Center. She was a Founder and Board Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, which was established in 1996 as a bipartisan citizen’s initiative to support NATO enlargement. Surely, she's qualified.

So why is Senator Brownback abandoning principle, acting against his committed stand of giving every nominee an up or down vote? Why has he suddenly become a relativist - saying that whether or not nominees deserve a vote is relative?

Julie Finley is pro-choice.

No matter that abortion isn't an issue for the OSCE. Nope, it just doesn't matter that her opinions on abortion have no relevance to the ambassadorship. Brownback doesn't like her ideology and that's enough for him to block a vote. Of course, ideology has been dismissed as a valid reason to block a vote on a judicial nominee - but again, that relativistic approach comes to the fore and ideology is apparently a perfectly good reason to block this vote.

You know what this means? No pro-choice women in any office requiring Senate confirmation. None. Now, a third of pro-choice women voted for Bush. Julie Finley was a major fundraiser for him. But that doesn't matter.

If you want Senate confirmation, you better cede control over your own body. You better endorse a ban on abortion, no matter if your health is at risk. You better click your heels when the ideological police show up. And you better not be surprised when the Republicans abandon principle to target you because you won't abandon yours. It's their way. It's not principled, of course. But that's relative.

A Good Feminist is a Warmonger?

I've been reading the Huffington Post off and on since it launched. Some of it's good, some not so good - like any group blog. One recent post, however, tripped a trigger for me - the same trigger that gets tripped every time I hear Bush trot out stories on women voting and girls going to school as proof that his wars are just. He's no friend to women domestically and I see his trumpeting of women's rights in the mid-east as a cynical ploy to engender support for his decision to invade Iraq. So I wasn't pleased to read this post by Danielle Crittenden. I shouldn't have been surprised that she took feminists to task, though, given Crittenden's credentials as an anti-feminist woman.

The Problems with Feminists' Views
In her post, Crittenden expresses wonder at the fact that feminists don't champion the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it clear that she thinks we have abandoned our feminist principles in favor of political alignment with the Democrats. She suggests that good feminists would be encouraging Bush to invade Iran or Saudi Arabia, given the oppression of women in those countries. She makes clear that she thinks feminists inaccurately equate the oppression of women in these religious regimes to oppression of women here in the states. And finally, she reprimands us for our lack of enthusiasm for the extreme conservative female judicial nominees that Bush has put forward.

A Good Feminist Supports Every Woman
I'll address her last point first, since it's a simple one. A feminist who supports any woman, regardless of their talents and opinions, is a stupid feminist. Certainly, no-one would argue that we should support Phyllis Schafly, the founder of Concerned Women of America. Why, then, would we support Priscilla Owens or any other woman who promotes ideas that are not women-friendly? The truth is that blind support for any woman regardless of their anti-feminist views is self-defeating. So we don't do that.

A Good Feminist is a Proponent of War
As for the "a good feminist is pro-war" argument - it's equally specious. She makes the argument that if we don't support the Bush wars then we are abandoning our principles as feminists. She goes so far as to rhetorically ask if there have ever been more "feminist wars." Feminist wars? She's got to be kidding. These are not "feminist wars" - the rights of women were not relevant to the decision to invade. We didn't go to war because women were oppressed. We aren't conducting these wars in order to free those women and we aren't conducting these wars with an eye towards protecting women. Women are only relevant in this war effort when they serve as effective propaganda.

We all know that we went into Afghanistan because the perpetrators of 9/11 thrived there. Not because women couldn't vote. We went into Iraq for God knows what reason,  but surely it wasn't because Saddam's sons were raping women. To condemn feminists because they don't champion wars begun and continued for reasons having nothing to do with the rights of women is a distraction from the real issues at hand. And it requires that we turn away from the reality that women are the biggest victims of war. Certainly, if you pay attention to what happens to women in war zones then you wouldn't argue  that good feminists would be lobbying for Bush to extend his wars into Saudi Arabia and Iran (as Crittenden suggests we should). War is not the sole, the best, or even an okay method of dealing with the oppression of women. It's just not that simple.

The Simplistic Worldview of Ms. Crittenden
Ms. Crittenden condemns feminists for equating the oppression of women in the mid-east with oppression here, calling our worldview simplistic.  She seems to think that because women in the states do not face the extreme oppression that those in the mid-east face, then we can't acknowledge and fight the oppression that does exist here. She's wrong and she suffers the very weakness she accuses us of having - she's got a simplistic worldview. She seems to imply that because the oppression of women elsewhere is so extreme, we can't talk about oppression of women here, particularly in the same conversation. I guess the prevalence of domestic violence and rape, sexism in the workplace, condemnation of single mothers who are told to work and then reprimanded for putting career ahead of their children, et. al. aren't worth noting, aren't oppression on one end of the spectrum. Her life is apparently comfortable and insular enough for her to ignore the reality that so many women live. It makes it easy to have a simplistic world view in which oppression must be extreme and systemic in order to be worthy of our intervention.

Her simplistic world view shines brightly in her arguments for feminist support for the Bush wars. She lumps Afghanistan and Iraq together, despite the fact that the rights and restrictions on women in each country were different before the wars and are different now. And she lumps Iran and Saudi Arabia in the same class - again, there are extreme differences in the governments and the rights of women in these two countries. Not to her though - she's got a simplistic world view.

It is exactly that simplistic worldview that keeps her from highlighting the political and cultural differences in the different countries in the mid-east and instead champion war as the solution. It enables her to omit any discussion of the new rights of women to vote in Kuwait, the prohibition for women voting in newly approved municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, the difference in opinion on the roles of women between the majority population in Iran, the youth, and the mullahs in charge. It's what allows her to celebrate the opening of schools for girls in Afghanistan while ignoring the fact that many of them don't attend for fear of being beaten for doing so. It allows her to celebrate the fact that that women voted in Afghanistan while ignoring the fact that many of them required the permission of their husbands to do and voted while hidden in their religiously mandated bhurkas. It allows her to celebrate the end of Saddam's son's rape parties while ignoring the loss of freedom that the war has brought Iraqi women. It allows her to be selective in what she acknowledges. It allows her to make specious arguments about feminists.

Summary
I suppose that I will continue to hear feminists criticized until the day I die. I'll hear it from women more than men, since a woman criticizing feminism gets more press. I'll hear women's values dismissed, women's oppression minimized, and women's concerns marginalized. It surprises me sometimes. Because feminism is a simple belief in the equality of the sexes, in the belief that women are no less valuable than men. The fact that it's controversial, that feminists are commonly called "femi-nazis", man-haters, and worse, is to me the best argument for embracing it, confronting anti-feminists like Ms. Crittenden, fighting conservative efforts to roll back the clock, working for incremental change here, and fighting for wholesale change in places of extreme oppression. And by fighting I don't mean invading - I mean fighting with our hearts and minds to improve the lot of women, not with guns, but with grace. That's what feminists are championing. It's not simple, not easy. But it's important. And it ours to do.

SoCar Politicians Say "Pop Her"

South Carolina is a beautiful state. I spent a lot of time there some years back, managing an account my company had with the state. I met wonderful people, down to earth, gracious, friendly,and interesting. But I wouldn't move there. No how, no way. If you want to know why, read this Trish Wilson post. It's a shameful comment on the world of women there, a world I don't want to know first hand. It's not like it's utopia everywhere else, but this... this is antideluvian.

Appalling Use of Women to Sell

I don't even know what to write. I just read this post at Mouse Words and clicked over to the advertisement she's referring to - an ad for high speed Internet access which uses every misconception about sex ed, health ed, biology instruction, and the assumed  threat of exposing children to facts about women's bodies to promote it's service. I'm appalled. Go look for yourself and take Amanda at Mouse Word's suggestion - let Bell Canada (executive.office@bell.ca) know that a picture of an ovary isn't damaging to a child, that presenting facts about women's bodies as dangerous and illicit information that children need to be protected from is a great way to alienate half their market. Really, it's appalling.

UPDATE:
From a comment thread at Feministing, I learned that:

The ad is one of several that are supposed to be very tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic in tone, however, I think that this one could've been thought out better. Without seeing any other ads in the series, one could assume what we all did and think "They think THAT'S inappropriate?!" when what they're -trying- to do is poke fun at people who -would- think that way. When the intent of an ad is unclear, the ad becomes a failure -- and in this case, an insulting one, at that.

Apparently, this is one in a number of ads designed to be funny but this one missed the mark. In further news with a curtsy to Heart of Canada for the tip, it looks like Bell Canada is pulling the ad, has apologized, and may send the women behind the creation of the ad to sensitivity training. This all comes in response to widespread negative reaction among Canadian consumers as well as government comment and online screams. So good.

The Where are the Women Meme Jumps to the NYT

From Howard Kurtz Washington Post column:

Gail Collins, the first woman to run the New York Times editorial page, says, "The pool of available people doing opinion writing is still tilted toward men. There are probably fewer women, in the great cosmic scheme of things, who feel comfortable writing very straight opinion stuff, and they're less comfortable hearing something on the news and batting something out."

So in the "great cosmic scheme of things" women aren't generally comfortable writing opinion and they're less comfortable hearing something in the news and batting something out? Well, I'm a woman, I just read this quote in the news, and here's my straight opinion: Bullshit. I don't know what insular world this woman inhabits, I suspect it's male dominated, but she ought to step out of her ink-stained tower and look around. She'll find women who have opinions, share them in writing, are comfortable doing so - even compelled to do so. She'll find women whose fingers itch to respond to news they just heard with their own thoughts which are often incisive, insightful, innovative, and powerful.

I find it unfathomable that the woman running the NYT editorial page, the woman, has a comfort zone that makes it easy for her to make such a vast and  dismissive assumption for public consumption. She's out of touch and would be a stellar contributor to the "where are the women political bloggers" meme.

UPDATE: IddyBud and Elayne Riggs have done the heavy lifting of compiling lists of women who blog about politics. This compliments the huge list of progressive women bloggers - who aren't necessarily primarily focused on politics - that's available at What She Said.

A Gift from the US Surgeon General

I'm not in the mood today to be understanding or patient or anything but opinionated and a little pissed. So be it. The result is that as I surf the blogosphere I keep getting annoyed - at nothing really. Poor writing, echo chambers, missing facts, opinions I disagree with - real or not, I'm grimacing my way through my favorite bloggers which just makes me crankier. You see, I know it's me that's the problem here but it doesn't matter. I know that the writing is generally strong, the facts are complete enough, the opinions valid, the echoes needed to raise awareness. I know all of that, but I don't care. I still want the world to mold itself into a shape of my liking - exactly to my liking thank you. It's a recipe for unhappiness.

So it's a gift, really, to find out something that warrants my bad mood. Something that provides a legitimate outlet for cranky, judgmental, dismissive annoyance. I gift to be legitimately offended and thereby have the freedom to give rein to my mood.

What information, you ask, did I find that opened this door? Well, thanks to Echidne of the Snakes, I've learned that this administration's surgeon general is paternalistically concerned about women of child-bearing age taking care of their health because they might get pregnant. Still menstruating? Take folic acid please. No really. It doesn't matter if you're not sexually active because you never know, right? You might do something out of character and invite the fedex guy in for a quick roll. Or what if you got raped, huh? See? Just because you're not having sex doesn't mean you won't, that pregnancy isn't so unlikely that you shouldn't be managing your health with the primary focus of preparing your body to be impregnated. And we better start an eductional program for teenage girls. Abstinence programs be damned. They're of child-bearing age and they better be sure that they're ready to be pregnant.

You see, that's the problem here. This kind of crap treats women like incubators waiting for incubatees. Not as people with health issues and concerns that may or may not include the possibility of pregnancy. As people with any control over their reproductive systems and choices. It's not about the woman, it's about the womb - that's what they think  the driving concern should be for fertile women - ensuring that your body is in prime condition to carry a child to term.

The surgeon general's focus is The Year of the Healthy Child, which is "a commitment to help improve the holistic health of children from pre-conception through the teen years". Here's a newsflash: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PRE-CONCEPTION HEALTH FOR A CHILD. The child doesn't exist and therefore it's holistic health cannot be improved. The woman, on the other hand, does exist -  as more than a walking, waiting womb.

I don't have an issue with the surgeon general providing information and advice to women about pregnancy and health - theirs and their child-to-be. I do have a problem with the advice being given to menstruating women everywhere - abstinent teens, nuns, single celibates, single and married women having sex who act responsibly to prevent pregnancy, all of us. It implies a real lack of control over reproductive choices, that we are victims of the random sperm that despite our best efforts to avoid it, finds its way to an egg and takes over our bodies. The health of the random sperm isn't addressed. Men's health isn't all about their role as sperm donor. Men's responsibility isn't on the table.

And finally, is the health of women who could get pregnant the biggest issue affecting children's health? The health of women who do get pregnant is a factor. But if we're going to target children's health can we start with children that exist and not the pre-conceived theoretical children? Wouldn't it be better to work to ensure that kids that actually exist have access to health care? Have enough food to eat? Shelter? Warmth? Clothing? Safety in their neighborhoods? Yeah, yeah. That's harder. And requires more than telling women to take folic acid and avoid alchohol.

I have no doubt that there are plenty of folks out there, men and women, who will find my outrage misplaced. I don't care. I'm tired of the excessive concern for people that don't yet exist and the lack of concern for those who do. I'll be more open to considering these kinds of wholesale, condescending, assuming recommendastions when there's real action to do something about the suffering of children living in poverty. Until then, my uterus is my business.

An Apt Metaphor

The Mahablog hits the nail on the head when it comes to the outrageous efforts of the Kansas Attorney General to look at the private medical records of women who have had abortions.

Now we've got the Attorney General of Kansas on a fishing expedition for the private medical records of women who have had abortions after 22 weeks' gestation. The purpose of this, he says, is to look for signs of lawbreaking. Doctors may be performing abortions too freely.

(Let's pretend this fellow were to obtain the private financial records of wealthy people just to look for signs these individuals were guilty of theft or fraud. I 'spect the righties would howl quite a bit.)

That's it exactly.

UPDATE: For more on the inane inconsistencies in the Attorney General's justification, check out this post  By Atrios.

Moving the Conversation Forward

After this post, I'm off this topic. I've been completely sidetracked and have used my limited blog time on the women and blogging topic. I want to get back to the news of the day. (I haven't even read the paper yet.)

However, I feel compelled to direct readers to Ezra Klein's post on the topic. I almost didn't read it, for fear that the three two month cycle on the topic had been reduced to two days and that I'd be reading another "women just don't poliblog" post.

While there were hints of that in Ezra's post, he actually managed to move the conversation forward, looking at the way the right and left blogosphere nurtures new talent (or doesn't). The bottom  line is that in the online world, as is true elsewhere, it's all about who you know. Some networks are expansive and open. Others are insular and closed. The left blogosphere isn't as expansive as we'd all like.

The most productive solution I've seen suggested, on other blogs but again by Ezra, is a promotion blogroll specifically created to give exposure to good blogs that aren't well known. If we all do that, whether we have low or high traffic, we take a solid step towards expanding our online blog network. I'll be adding my own promotional blogroll this weekend. I think we should all do it.

On a minor note, I do have one complaint about Ezra's post which is titled "Girls with Keyboards". Perhaps it's an age thing - his or mine - but I mentally wince when women of all ages are referred to as girls. We're all grown up and there's a word for grown up girls: women. I've known men who couldn't comfortably say the word "woman" and would default to "female" when they couldn't say "girl". It's a small point but I believe that words are powerful. Women have historically been marginalized, labeled the weaker sex, assumed to be 'less than' their male counterparts. Using the word 'girl' to refer to women feeds that in a very subtle and small way. So let's agree that if we're grown up, we're women and that's what we should be called. Okay?