feminist blogs in english

Via Broadsheet comes incredibly disturbing news out of Uzbekistan. Human rights groups, victims, and health officials are accusing the government of sterilizing hundreds of Uzbek women without their knowledge and against their will in an attempt to lower the birthrate.

From the Associated Press:

Human rights advocates and doctors say autocratic President Islam Karimov this year ramped up a sterilization campaign he initiated in the late 1990s. In a decree issued in February, the Health Ministry ordered all medical facilities to "strengthen control over the medical examination of women of childbearing age."

The decree also said that "surgical contraception should be provided free of charge" to women who volunteer for the procedure.

It did not specifically mandate sterilizations, but critics allege that doctors have come under direct pressure from the government to perform them: "The order comes from the very top," said Khaitboy Yakubov, head of the Najot human rights group in Uzbekistan.

While Uzbekistan may be the only country where forced sterilization is government policy, in reality far too many governments have been supportive of the practice. The AP mentions that Amnesty International has accused authorities in China of pushing coerced sterilizations. And Ryan Brown at Broadsheet reminds us that this practice is very much a part of recent U.S. history:

In our justifiably horrified response to this piece of news, we should keep in mind that 60,000 Americans, primarily the mentally ill, have been legally sterilized against their will. And I'm not talking ancient history -- the procedure was performed in several states well into the 20th century, with the last recorded legal forced sterilization taking place in Oregon in 1981. That means there are still Americans living with the brutal consequences of their government's belief that the decision to reproduce did not belong to them, a burden that they now allegedly share with hundreds of women half a world away.

Due to an anti-choice kerfuffle on Wednesday on whether Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans (otherwise known as high risk pools) will include abortion coverage, President Obama seemed to quickly concede and announced a total abortion ban in the pools. This is despite the fact that this was not in the original health care reform bill. As a result, many high-risk women who may be more apt to complications with their pregnancies will not be given coverage for an abortion.

RH Reality Check has the lowdown about this and how the ban actually goes further than the executive order compromise made originally:

It is understandable that the Administration might now feel the need to honor the "spirit" of the compromise that resulted in the Executive Order. But the whole point of the compromise was to preserve the status quo, which included both restricted and unrestricted spheres of abortion funding. Moreover, the terms of the agreement were carefully negotiated. Abortion opponents who participated in the bargaining did not raise concerns about high risk pools or other specific potential sources of federal funding, and they should be able to live with the deal they made.

The worst of it is that the Administration could have at the very least set up something akin to the Hyde Amendment and the PPACA by giving states the option of using state or private money to cover abortion care costs. Instead, the Administration cited the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan specifically as the controlling precedent for the PCIPs.

The FEHBP, like the Stupak Amendment, imposes a total ban on non-Hyde abortion care, meaning that non-federal money cannot be used to supplement premiums in order to purchase a plan that includes abortion coverage. Thus, without even any political or legislative benefit to receive in exchange, the Obama Administration has imposed a more restrictive abortion funding rule on PCIPs than is required for health insurance exchanges or Medicaid.

Check out statements being made by pro-choice organizations like the National Institute for Reproductive Health and Planned Parenthood. You can take action via NARAL Pro-Choice America here.

Despite consistent pressure by advocates and victims to change the Vatican's house rules on clerical sex abuse, their newly released revisions of the document doesn't seem to include any of their requests: there are no requirements to report abuse to the police, as well as no mention of sanctions for bishops covering up any abuse. However, they had no problem making a special new addition to the document, via AP:

The rules cover the canonical penalties and procedures used for the most grave crimes in the church, both sacramental and moral, and double the statute of limitations applied to them. One new element included lists the attempted ordination of women as a "grave crime" subject to the same set of procedures and punishments meted out for sex abuse.

So apparently they can't seem to get around to calling for the reporting of sex abusers to authorities, but have no problem excommunicating any woman who is ordained and defrocking any priest that helps her. (Not to mention, of course, equating the horror of sex abuse with women's ordination.) And now that we're on the subject, I think I have a few items that should be added to the "grave crimes" list, if I may do so myself:

• Abandoning poor and homeless people
• Keeping a woman in a 17-year long coma alive as an apparent fetal container
• Spreading lies about birth control
• Dangerously saying condoms actually increase the AIDS problem
• Being a homophobic and anti-choice asshole

Whew, that feels better! I'm sure I didn't get them all though. What did I miss?

UPDATE: The Vatican responds to the uproar this has caused.

by Amanda Marcotte

To continue the theme of talking about “Friday Night Lights”, I have to link this review of the abortion episode from the New York Times, because it had such a beautiful distillation of what’s so wrong with the way abortion is treated in the mainstream media.

What was striking about the exploration of Becky’s circumstance on “Friday Night Lights” was the extent to which the opposing view was depicted as obtuse and out of touch. Two years ago an anonymous young woman ultimately received an abortion on “Private Practice” but not before an hour of television had passed which felt less like drama and more like journalism — sound, balanced and fair — with all relevant moral positions respectfully represented.

It’s one of those glistening moments when they admit that being “balanced” and catering to right wing nuts will always and forever be considered more important than being honest and accurate.  And suggesting that “journalism” has some obligation to work PR for wingnuts that comes before its obligations to the public to be informative and, again, accurate.  Because an accurate portrayal of the anti-choice movement would result in one where they come across as obtuse and out-of-touch, because that’s what they are.  It’s almost definitional---anyone who waves off the struggles of a pregnant 15-year-old and suggests that it will all work out in the end is someone who has deliberately made herself unable to relate to the problems of her fellow human beings, because her dedication to the patriarchy is so strong.  Anyone who puts an embryo over a living, breathing human being but refuses to admit that’s what she’s doing and turns herself into pretzels trying to rationalize that is obtuse by definition. Anyone willing to promote anti-choice lie because that’s what they wish was true is obtuse and out-of-touch at best.  That’s the generous interpretation---that they’re fuddy-duddies who don’t know any better.  In many cases, it’s worse than that, and they’re just sadistic assholes. 

Anti-choicers have always been the leading edge in terms of pushing right wing nuttery into mainstream discourse, and making critical, honest takes on it taboo.  Anti-choicers set the path then followed by neocons claiming that we’d be greeted like liberators in Iraq, pollution apologists who claim that global warming is a hoax, and other assorted assholes and liars that get treated with respect they don’t deserve in the mainstream press that fears appearing unbalanced.  Anti-choicers are pioneers in the art of getting the mainstream media to give them a major handicap, because presenting their side honestly would turn so many people off, and that’s somehow “unfair”.  They were able to get the misleading propaganda term “pro-life” into the mainstream discourse, even though there’s nothing objectively pro-life about them, especially when opponents of legal abortion are way more likely to support war, the death penalty, and depriving people of life-preserving health care and nutrition because of their income levels. 

When you do present the issue of abortion fairly, you find that a much different image of anti-choicers emerges than the tender-hearted one that the mainstream media helps concoct as a cover story for the anti-choicer nutters.  You get something closer to the documentary “12th and Delaware”, which gives equal time to the antis and the clinic workers, and was signed off on by both sides.  With little editorializing, the picture that you get of anti-choicers is of a group of mean-spirited bullies who are, surprise surprise, obtuse and out-of-touch, as well as shockingly willing to lie to women in an effort to discourage the use of abortion and contraception.  And by obtuse and out-of-touch, I mean really obtuse and out-of-touch.  One thing that really becomes clear when you start to dig in and look at the anti-choice movement for what it is, you start to find that the people that move it have really weird ideas about what the world is really like, ideas that make them often sound like they’ve been locked in a cave for decades and have completely forgotten how actual human beings operate in the real world.  In many cases, I think they’re not as clueless as they seem, but are just putting up a front to conceal that they know perfectly well that things like parental notification laws won’t actually improve parent-child relationships but instead will create hell for teenage girls in bad situations, but they don’t want to admit that the latter is their real goal.  In some cases, though, like when Jill Stanek praised men who would beat up a woman for having an abortion as real men, I think that they’re being perfectly honest and really are that out-of-touch with what the mainstream that doesn’t hate women nearly as much thinks. 

Anyway, it’s just a real shame to see how easy it has become for writers for publications like the NY Times to agree that they have an obligation to “balance” before old-fashioned journalistic values like accuracy.

On Friday, NBC aired an episode of Friday Night Lights in which a main character has an abortion. This is incredibly rare in pop culture: we see a lot of stories about accidental pregnancy where the character decides to have the baby and in which abortion is rarely even addressed. I'm happy to see a show on a major network actually address abortion, and do so well.

This episode originally aired in January on DirecTV and I wrote about it at the time:

Becky, the character who gets pregnant, is in 10th grade and doesn't have a lot of money. From the beginning Becky signals that she will pursue an abortion, but almost every character she speaks with has to offer their own take on her decision. Ultimately, Becky receives support and guidance from Tami Taylor, often the show's moral center.

...

I thought the show did an excellent job of depicting two aspects of the lived experience of this decision, though: legal barriers faced by a young person and the pressure of other people's opinions. Becky tells Luke, the man involved, that she needs half the money for an abortion from him - the procedure is expensive, especially for a high school student from a working poor background. Luke seems to try not to pressure Becky, but he is clearly anti-choice. Becky realizes he won't be a resource or someone to help her through this process. Tami subtly and tactfully walks Becky through Texas' parental consent requirement, making sure she can safely tell a parent about the abortion. Becky doesn't want to tell her mother, but she has to. This increases the emotional pressure related to the procedure, as her mother has strong feelings and may even regret that she did not have an abortion when she was pregnant with Becky. Becky's mother reacts angrily at the initial appointment when a doctor starts to walk Becky through state-mandated counseling and Texas' 24-hour waiting period. Both are barriers that make having the procedure more difficult, but so is the added emotional pressure from a parent focused more on her feelings and opinions than her daughter's needs.

Click here to read the full original post.

In the original post I was critical of the writers having Tami Taylor hesitate to give Becky information about accessing abortion. Having seen the rest of this season, I will say that the reason Tami was so careful is addressed very well in subsequent episodes. The plot turns to an examination of what happens when we let a personal medical decision become an impersonal debate of moral absolutes, and how a good person can be hurt by the crusade of extremist anti-choicers. It's a story the show continues to handle excellently throughout the season.

Many of the responses to the episode that I've read express how rare and positive it is to see abortion actually addressed in pop entertainment, and approached as a personal experience instead of just a divisive political issue. The episode has been called one of the show's "finest hours," which is saying a lot for a consistently great program. The New York Times considers Friday Night Lights' approach to abortion to be taking political sides, since it represents Becky's personal experience and doesn't give much respect to antis. I actually disagree - I think stories about abortion that treat it like an issue with two equally valid positions ignore the reality that abortion is something real people experience, not just a topic of abstract debate. It is a political choice in this particular moment to approach abortion the way Friday Night Lights does, but I think it's a far better take than attempts at neutrality from some other shows.

When this episode originally aired on DirecTV myself and others questioned if it would actually air on NBC. Watching the rest of the season, I wondered if NBC would try to back out of airing subsequent episodes as well. There seems to be a rule in TV and movies in recent years that the anti-choice position must receive a lot of weight and respect if abortion is addressed at all, which in itself is usually avoided. I'm very happy to see such a personal, compassionate, and wise approach to abortion shown on major network television. I think it's important that this episode aired, and I hope it represents the beginning of a shift in how abortion is addressed in pop culture.

Related:
I'm rooting for an abortion this Friday night

I spent this Independence Day catching up on sleep.

I know, I've heard...a body can't really catch up on sleep, but the attempt was refreshing as hell.

Anyhoo, in between naps I started to ponder the state of the social justice movement.

What?

Some people daydream about tropical getaways...

...I ponder the paradise of a just world!

Anyhoo, as I lay about sorta sleeping I pondered the forces making moves to appropriate the language and tactics of social justice movements.

These groups may or may not be acting together...but they have settled on a path that would take tools created to empower and use them to deny rights while inspiring fear, confusion and distrust.

From conservative politicians trying to lay claim to feminism to relatives of Civil Rights legends making the charge of black genocide...oh yes, something wicked this way comes.

'Tis doubtful that progressives will fall for this mess and even more doubtful that conservatives want spent time and money trying to recruit the faithful to their side - I think these forces seek to muddy the waters for the undecideds and uncertain.

I suspect that their definition of success is not to convert ...rather, it is to create a climate of distrust that turns down the volume of social justice, corrupts the image of reproductive health care and makes progressives spin in circles trying to defend everything from the pill to the physical location of health care centers.

I've spent more than my fair share of time in a defensive space because of this shit, but something about Independence Day inspired an Ah ha moment...and I'm done just defending.

Because I know and they know that the best defense of reproductive justice is reproductive justice...the actions, education and facts that made me join this movement in the first place.

There is power in focusing on the realities on the ground that these imposters prefer to ignore...

...and our unashamed unapologetic focus on and activism to address those realities defines what we who are the reproductive justice movement are really about.

Oh, I'm not going to abandoned the word war battlefield completely...an accusation unaddressed can too easily become truth.

But it hit me, as I pondered this situation, that it's been a while since I got out and about...since I was present at a youth club, shelter or health care center. It's been far too long since I dedicated a class to my student's questions and concerns...since I listened instead of assuming that I already know what they are thinking about or worried about or need to know.

It's time to get back to basics...to return to the grassroots, where reproductive justice is defined by what is done and who is doing it.

Oh hell yes, I'm done just defending.

As my Grandmother used to say...movements move - whether they move in the right direction depends on the participants.

by Amanda Marcotte

Scott at World O’ Crap has a hilarious post up about anti-choicers pretending that they just discovered that they oppose abortion because it violates men’s rights over their uterine property (established by the “poke it/own it” law laid down in beer commercials).  In it, he discovers that there’s been an attempt to make sympathy cards for men who’ve been violated by women just up and aborting without permission.

I felt like this was a nice try, but really fell short of expressing the full range of emotions that they’re trying to get at.  So I went to Someecards and made up some of my own, which I do believe better suit the purposes of the Fatherhood Forever Foundation. 

More below the fold.

Come up with your own slogans, or better yet, have some fun making your own at Someecards!  Don’t forget to share in comments. 

Massachusetts, the state where I grew up and that many people assume is a lefty paradise, will be offering motorists anti-choice license plates. The plates, which read "Choose Life" and will direct funds to crisis pregnancy centers, are available in over twenty other states already. Compare that to four states with pro-choice plates.

Crisis pregnancy centers are in the business of keeping women from accessing abortion, and regularly give out false and misleading information to achieve that goal. And now we've got one more state that will be directing license plate funds to these ideologically motivated fake clinics.

Apparently God's a supporter of the plates according to Merry Nordeen, who led the campaign to get them approved, though that didn't help expedite the process in a state with no legislative hurdle for new license plates:

"I prayed really hard for this -- I prayed for seven years, and God didn't disappoint me,'' she said in a phone interview.

So your God's a big fan of deception then? Isn't lying supposed to be a sin?

There are currently no plans to introduce pro-choice license plates that would fund real and unbiased reproductive health clinics in MA. Um, why not?

This guest post is from Lilianna Angel Reyes, who I had the pleasure of co-presenting with at the CLPP Reproductive Justice Conference. If you're at the US Social Forum check out Lillianna's TransFeminism workshop. Her bio is after the jump.

So..... at a recent conference, I was asked to speak about the amazing feminist organizations I represent. I thought that would be fun, but then I thought about how, due to capitalism, we value people based on their formal work, not entirely what they believe or who they strive to become. It is as if we assimilate into our organizations' missions in their entirety. Although I work for great organizations, I wanted to tell the conference guests why the organizations fit me and why they became a vehicle for my social justice passion. I wanted them to know who I was because, in truth, they could easily Google my organizations, but could never Google search me in my entirety. So, I wrote a spoken word piece about who I was. Through this poem, I allowed them to discern why I picked the organizations that represent me, not vice versa.

Who Am I?

I am a womyn-with a Y- who has been pushed aside because of not having a vagina! A womyn who has been actively pro choice and believes in a right to choose, whether it be to continue a pregnancy or whom one has sex with.

A womyn not a female, never wanting to comply with the gender sex parallel, but living my life at the intersection-unapologetically- being male and a womyn. Forcing the separation of gender and sex!

I am the one who has and still conforms to the ideal gender stereotype of being feminine and being womanly. Having silicone injected in her in the backroom of an apartment with the fear of dying within ten minutes. Yet not caring because my need to fit in, to look normal, to be passable.

I am the womyn who pops hormone pills without medical supervision because insurance companies won't cover them and the doctors are uncomfortable giving them. Yet having the want and feeling and succumbing to the societal pressures of the gender binary.

Who Am I?

I am a person of color, specifically a Chicana of Mexican descent- who has been pushed away from my people because of my native language being Anglo, being white, being English. A proud Chicana shouting "La Raza" throughout my life learning an Anglo elitist Spanish, one that gets sneered on by my people.

I am a person of color whose people looks at her with disdain because of my gender choice that disassociates the sex chromosomes within me. I am a person of color that refuses to adopt total whiteness as beauty. Rockin' my curly thick black hair no blonde highlights here, brown eyes, no blue contacts there, curvy sexy body, no diets to be a size 2.

Who Am I?

I am a transgender womyn of color-Chicana of Mexican descent Marxist radical feminist that wants so badly to destroy and change capitalism because the they who have are oppressing and forcing-us the oppressed- to oppress ourselves. They and we are stripping us of our culture by creating a norm for assimilation, and we are doing nothing-nothing-nothing stop them, to stop us.

Who Am I?

I am tired-tired of my transgender identity being pushed aside by my LGBT people, by my brothers and sisters- the organizations, groups, and individuals pushing us-the T aside- in order to push their agenda further. Telling me, telling us that our time will come, that we will have a way, an option, a fight, an ally. I am the one who is tired and refuses to wait for that time, but one of many who makes their own time!

I am one of many who will take our place in the struggle for equality. Not jogging behind, or stepped on, but standing next too our sisters and brothers fighting for equal rights- in addition to trans rights- not in lieu of them. I am the pissed off transgender womyn-with a y- who will forcefully take my place in the front line, not as a token, but as a warrior for peaceful means for equality.

Who Am I?

I am not only oppressed, but am the oppressor, the gatekeeper, the one who marginalizes my people. I am the one who is tired of the pain, tired of the tears, the blood, the homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist person I strive to not become yet succumb to at the same time everyday.

Who Am I?

I am one of many to not rest on the laurels of the past, but continue the fight of the future. As Rebecca Walker said she was the third, I am the fourth. The fourth wave feminist who stands tall encompassing all the momentum of the foremothers before me, the forefathers paving the way. I encompass racist feminists, homophobic activists and transphobic revolutionaries. They push me, I am the amalgamation of them, yet I am one, the one of many who will continue to fight for trans people in a new direction in a new paradigm, free from the hate of the past warriors. Based on love and equality, not on fear and assimilation.

Who Am I?

I am they, I am them, I am us, I am we, I am you! Who you are, I am too!

Lilianna Angel L.C. Reyes has been a long time pro choice fourth wave feminist activist in her personal, collegiate, and professional life. She utilizes her passions to find an equilibrium of justice. Her Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (LGBTQQ) work is closely intertwined with her reproductive justice work, women, and people of color work. She strategically waits until the Revolution begins, so she can spring into action; totally not joking!

Last week at Truthout Lucinda Marshall raised the topic of the reproductive health impacts of the BP oil spill. We don't know all the chemicals in the oil and dispersants, but what we do know already contains some pretty disturbing information. Benzene, a common ingredient in oil, may impair fertility. As for the dispersants:

Corexit, the dispersant that is being used by BP contains 2ButoxyEthanol, which "may damage the developing fetus. There is limited evidence that 2-Butoxy Ethanol may damage the male reproductive system (including decreasing the sperm count) in animals and may affect female fertility in animals," according to the safety sheet.

Marshall followed up the original article with a blog post detailing new information that's come out about the chemicals used. BP is still trying to reveal as little as possible, but there are definitely toxic substances included, some of which are known to have reproductive health impacts.

The effects of dumping toxins into the Gulf of Mexico are being felt first by people who live and work on the coast, including clean up workers. Folks in this area will likely feel the worst of the spill's impact for a while. But toxins will of course move into our food after becoming part of the aquatic food chain. They'll be spread through weather, too, including acid rain as Marshall points out.

It's hard to overstate the devastating environmental impact of the BP spill. One of the results of the spill will be negative reproductive health impacts. I'm very grateful Marshall's doing the hard work of raising this topic and trying to find answers. We need a lot more information from BP to understand the devastation they've caused. And we need to keep paying attention to every aspect of the spill and its aftermath, including the link here between environmental degradation and reproductive oppression, which is being caused by the spill.