8 posts tagged “feminism”

There is a big hullabaloo, both here in St. Louis, and nationwide, that infamous Anti-Feminist Phyllis Schlafly is being awarded an Honorary Doctorate at the 2008 Washington University commencement ceremony.  Much protesting has ensued, and will continue throughout the festivities tomorrow.  I'm anxious to see how it turns out.

For those of you playing the home game, Mrs. Schlafly attended WashU as a 5th generation student, getting both a Bachelors and Law degree from the institution.  Since then, she has made it her life's work to fight the very movement that allowed her to seek that prestigious, coveted, privileged education, and to repeatedly tell the population of married American women they cannot be raped by their spouses(due to that pesky 'consent to sex forever and ever' somewhere in between the lines of marriage vows)...

                      "I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That's what marriage
                       is all about, I don't know if maybe these girls missed sex ed."  (emphasis mine)

If someone doesn't get the jaw-dropping irony in THAT statement, I think you should give me a call.  We should talk.

As if the idea of an internationally-known institute of higher education endorsing (albeit, the administration hopes, indirectly) the spewing of anti-feminist garbage... I have even more irony to lay on ya!!!!

The person being honored before The Schlafly Lady....  Dr. Jessie L. Ternberg, MD.  A woman.  A surgeon.  A trailblazing spitfire, from the sounds of things.

Directly quoting from this profile of Dr. Ternberg:

I was barefoot and in my kitchen (baking zucchini bread for my family's Christmas celebrations) when I overheard this on a commercial for Burlington Coat Factory.  It was aired, no less, on Bravo, during Eddie Murphy's "Raw"...well, what they can show on TV.

Man says:  "Give a woman a pair of high heels, and she can conquer the world!"

...or she can become a chronic podiatric pain patient.  I love the pseudo-empowerment-encloaked-in-objectification (not to mention traditional gender roles and impossible definitions of beauty) that so many advertising firms are adopting. 

I, personally, could get away with never wearing high heels ever again.  I will, most likely, be wearing a uniform that closely resembles pajamas and clogs or tennis shoes.  And I will be much closer to conquering the world than the total tool who wrote that commercial.

*sigh*

And, just as I finished the last asterisk in the line above:  the "feel what's real" line came out of a nude Charlize Theron walking through a luxe penthouse as a promo for J'adore perfume.

::Please, God, give me sons.::

As a group of future physicians, I think it is reasonable that the general public has an elevated standard of social conduct for medical students.  This standard includes, at the very minimum, being a decent human being who is concerned for the health and well-being of others.  Additional demands likely include sensitivity and the ability to resist the ugly societal practice of discrimination--including sexism.  After all, more than 50% of American medical graduates are women... so they should be getting equal respect from male colleagues and classmates, right?

Married men, for the most part, are expected to fulfill those *pesky* little vows that they took when they decided to take the woman they love as their wife.  At least, where I'm from.  I think most of them mention "honoring" her; some even say "cherish"!!!

So, imagine my complete and utter shock when I hear one of my very Mormon, very male, very married classmates say today (to another M, M, and M classmate).... "...so I put her IN HER PLACE!!  You do what I WANT, WOMAN! Ha ha ha ha ha!! *smile and laugh with other male*

**I love how the phrase "in her place" is used--her place is at home cleaning his house, raising his children, cooking his food, and making sure he is completely comfortable so he can be in the classroom, wasting the lecture time on his laptop, doing nothing relevant to the material.  Her place is also, apparently, right next to the phone between lectures so he can call and check up on her, and request further effort on his behalf--usually involving a trip out of the home with aforementioned children.

**I also enjoyed the vocal inflection in his use of the word "woman."  He used it at a dirty word--but avoided swearing by not using 'bitch' or 'cunt.'  Must set a good example for the Mormon spawn, you know.  Didn't you know being female is something of which to be ashamed?  Gag me with a spork.

I love being a woman--I love being a future physician--I love the fact that I earned my place here, JUST LIKE THEY DID.   However, I hate being able to study the white-male privilege phenomenon in my medical school classroom.

Well, the bill I wrote five e-mails about on Sunday (i.e., the one cited in my last post) passed the Missouri House yesterday.

Shit.

Now it's moving to the Senate, where its fraternal twin is already being considered.  And I know I can't count on my senator (Delbert Scott-R, Senate District 28) to stand up for me, just like I couldn't count on Representative Wilson to stand up for me.  Honestly, I can't count on 98% of my home district for either house to stand up for me.  That is a saddening, hollow feeling.  And one of the only comforts I used to have was knowing that a small group of people who *would* stand up for me, and my health, and my rights was just a 30 minute drive away.  That might all change by the end of the week.

Planned Parenthood is in grave danger in Missouri.  So are women's rights.

Shit.

Dear [ Decision Maker ],

As one of the majority of Missourians who value prevention over dangerous health care restrictions, I urge you to oppose HCS for HB 1055.

This omnibus bill combines many dangerous initiatives that will cut access to family planning services, medically accurate information about contraception in schools and will close clinics leaving only one abortion facility in Missouri.

Worse, the bill will do nothing to prevent unintended pregnancy -- the common-sense policy solution to reducing abortion.  I cannot understand why the Missouri legislature would spend time and tax dollars debating bills that do nothing to reduce the need for abortion when there are sensible solutions that are being ignored.

Closing abortion providing clinics will have little or no effect on the number of abortions performed--it will simply make them harder for women to access, and result in more procedures performed later into the pregnancy.  Just as before Roe v. Wade, women may have to resort to unproven, unsafe procedures to end their pregnancies.

The abortion debate can be eliminated by simply taking action to prevent unintended pregnancies by ensuring that proper, factual information about family planning, safer sex practices, and contraception are readily available to any and all patients (male and female) who need or request them.  Preventive care is an essential part of preventing unintended pregnancies, and should be the focus of everyone in the state of Missouri--pro-choice and otherwise. 

The restrictions placed on sexual information and family planning that are currently in place are not proving effective.  One of the greatest features of our government is that it allows the people to effect change in the law when they find that it is not working in the way they initially intended.  This omnibus bill is moving in the wrong direction; it is robbing a very real issue, and those who are faced with it, of the resources required to help solve the problem of unintended pregnancies. 

I urge you and your colleagues, whether pro-choice or pro-life, to help the state of Missouri by helping us make every child a wanted child.  I urge you to dismiss this dangerous bill and to put into place common sense legislation that will be effective in reducing the annual number of abortions performed by providing the citizens of Missouri with the information they need to preserve their health and prevent unintended pregnancies.

Sincerely,
Me

***THE MISSOURI GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS DEBATING A VERY DANGEROUS INITIATIVE THAT MAY PASS AS EARLY AS TOMORROW!!!!  IT WILL CLOSE WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINICS, LEAVING ONLY ONE ABORTION PROVIDING CLINIC IN THE ENTIRE STATE!!!  IT PREVENTS COMPREHENSIVE SEXUAL EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS, AND BANS PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL PROPERTY!  PLEASE WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND LET HIM/HER KNOW THAT YOU WANT PREVENTIVE CARE, AND THAT INEFFECTIVE POLICIES SHOULD BE CHANGED TO SUIT THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE!***

You may never need the protection that this bill eliminates, but your sister, cousin, neighbor, mother, aunt, or best friend might need it tomorrow.  Please keep that in mind--and help us continue to the fight for women's right to make her own medical decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court began the Bush Administration's agenda to practically, if not literally, reverse Roe v. Wade yesterday, with a 5-4 decision to uphold the "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban passed by Congress.  Text from the bill can be found in quotes.  My responses to each sentence follow, likely with profanity.

"(F) A ban on the partial-birth abortion procedure will therefore advance the health interests of pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy..."

Unless the fetus is already dead inside of her, or she has developed a condition (yes, they DO exist) that threatens her life and can only be reversed by termination of the pregnancy.

" (G) In light of this overwhelming evidence, Congress and the States have a compelling interest in prohibiting partial-birth abortions. In addition to promoting maternal health, such a prohibition will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide, that preserves the integrity of the medical profession, and promotes respect for human life."

This is true, as long as "human life" only applies to a fetus that cannot survive without the woman as its life support system...  And your "overwhelming evidence" is bullshit, as I will show below.

" (B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. "

2,000 D&X procedures were carried out last year, consituting only 0.1% of the total number of abortions in the United States.  As far as I know, none of those women dropped dead on the surgical table.  In addition, the Congress's definition of credible evidence falls short of rationality.  They effectively threw out 30+ years of evidence supporting the safety of medical abortion procedures, and the medical requirements in order to preserve health of pregnant women experiencing complications.  "Partial-birth" abortions don't need to be *safer* than other abortion methods because the other procedures are incredibly safe.  Especially compared to the coat-hanger-and-a-towel methods of the '50s and '60s.

" (E) The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman."

The testimony of a single man determines the medical relevance of a procedure for millions of women, each of whom has a unique medical history and pregnancy experience?  That doesn't sound very scientific.  This reasoning flies in the face of medicine, and indeed, the scientific process of evolving and improving technology and methods to benefit mankind in its present state.  For example:  "Well, this vaccine is effective against a virus only found in African monkeys, which has never been found in humans, so I guess we'll just destroy it forever." --Dr. Robert Gallo, 1980, before the beginning of the AIDS pandemic.

" (C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is `not an accepted medical practice', that it has `never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that `the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown,' and that `there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'."

I'm not entirely sure what medical association these people have talked to, but it's definitely not the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or the American Medical Association... These groups have protested the prohibition of surgical procedures for termination of pregnancy for the tenure of anti-choice legislation.  These are pretty fucking prominent medical associations, if you ask me.  And they're the ones who are performing the procedure, on consenting, and often desperate, patients who need an OB/GYN's expertise and training in order to maintain their own lives, families, and contribution to the society that we all enjoy.

Just to make sure that the disgusting measure of self-righteous misogyny isn't missed in this bill, here's what you men can do if yo' baby momma has a "partial-birth" abortion:

"`(c)(1) The father, if married to the mother at the time she receives a partial-birth abortion procedure, and if the mother has not attained the age of 18 years at the time of the abortion, the maternal grandparents of the fetus, may in a civil action obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

`(2) Such relief shall include--

`(A) money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, occasioned by the violation of this section; and

`(B) statutory damages equal to three times the cost of the partial-birth abortion."

I AM SOOOOO ANGRY RIGHT NOW.  My sex apparently automatically strips me of several freedoms as a human being.  When I introduce myself as a feminist, I am often met by incredulity and the statement that the Women's Liberation Movement is over, and feminism is no longer warrented by our society.  I used to struggle to point out several cases that support my beliefs, but I will never struggle again.  Not after today.

Because I am a woman, I am apparently not entitled to walk from the bus stop to my home without harassment.  I am subject to the disgusting nature of my male peers--cat calls, name-calling, and mockery.  I cannot feel safe walking by myself, in the middle of the fucking day, in the small and friendly city of my residence.

It was gorgeous outside today; in my effort to increase my fitness level and enjoy the spring weather, I decided to make the 10 minute walk to the campus shuttle this morning.  I was walking home from the Trowbridge bus stop after class about 10 minutes ago, and as I passed a truck stopped in the left-turn lane, the three douchebags apparently "caught my scent."
Douche:  HAAAAAAAAAY, BAAAAAAAAABAY!! Do you need a ride?  Or do you want to get in the truck?
Me:  "Fuck you, moron." *flips off retards*
Douche:  "Yeahhh!!! Thumbs up, bitch!  I'll give you a thumbs up too!"
Then, as I reached the intersection, he was turning left onto Stadium, and screamed something unintelligible--but unmistakably disgusting--out the window at me again.  This was, of course, accompanied by a cat call and laughter from the two passengers in the truck.

I felt my face flush and my ears burn.  Tears began to well.  I called my mother to explain what had just happened, and to vent my initial bolus of anger.  By the time I got home, I was silently crying.  For myself, for my fellow women, and for the little girls that will likely experience this type of harassment.  I don't understand what makes such a large group of men feel entitled to treat women as objects suited to pleasure them, or as objects with absolute value assigned based on their attractiveness or appearance.  I don't understand why I, walking along a street, not bothering anyone, not speaking to anyone, am subject to such hateful verbal attack.

Sadly enough, that's not the first time something like this has happened to me.  I had a very similar experience early last semester, under the same circumstances.  It was brief--a one-time, head-out-the window shout--but it still happened.

The advice I've recieved today:  "That's just the way the world is right now..."  "Just ignore it..."  Seriously?  That's what you have to say?  How is that going to solve the problem that is so obvious!?

Even more sad is how LUCKY I am after this whole thing.  I guess I'm lucky, in the fact that I didn't end up like the New York woman, who was run over by her aggressor after a similar reaction to his harassment.  I'm also lucky that he didn't jump out of his truck and physically attack me, or pull me into his truck.  It's hard to feel lucky, though.  I shouldn't *have* to feel lucky.  Although, this is the same philosophy I have heard women trapped in abusive or unhappy marriages.  The alcoholic's wife says, "Well, at least he doesn't beat me."  The abuser's wife says, "At least he didn't kill me" or "At least the bruises aren't on my face" or "At least he doesn't beat our kids."

Why does feminism still exist?  Why are we still ever-vigilant for women's rights and the dichotomy between the social conditions that exist in our legal system and how women are treated in larger society?  Why do women need to continue to stand up for themselves and spread the word about inequality and injustice we experience on a regular basis?  Because no one else, especially the men who govern so much of our lives, is going to do it for us.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Even looking at the horrific tragedy at Virginia Tech, we can see the results propagated by the sense of male ownership of the female population, and how strongly some males feel about this particular idea.  The person who snuffed 33 lives in his selfish acts on campus was reportedly "looking for his ex-girlfriend"... with two guns and a vest full of ammunition.  Why would a man look for an ex-girlfriend with one gun, let alone two?!  Because he has a sense of ownership, which has been broken, and is looking to reverse or seek revenge for that.  The woman is to fear the man because of his power over her, and his willingness to exercise it on her, at the expense of her life.  Every day, women are made to feel this particular horror, whether on US soil, or in developing nations across the globe.  This is wrong--as wrong as anything I've ever known.

I posted this as a comment on Melissa's amazing post about conscience clauses provided for physicians as a "moral safeguard" against performing abortions, if they are opposed to the practice.  You can read it here:  Melissa's Post

You and I are incredibly like-minded on this subject, so you know that I agree with you on the entirety of this post.

I think that the choice NOT to have an abortion is just as valid as the choice to undergo the procedure, and that no one should ever be forced or coerced into either decision.  Millions of women choose NOT to have an abortion every year--I have the utmost respect for those women, their choices, and their commitment to raising the child in question.

However, the women who make the choice to terminate a pregnancy are often doing so to benefit many people OTHER than themselves:  a financially burdened family, several children who are already suffering in a single-parent household, or a loved one who has fallen ill and needs personal care on a daily basis.  These women don't need judgment, especially by all of us other "corrupt" sinning Christians--they need support.  Abortion as birth control is a myth.  Freely-accessible birth control (that isn't abstinence, which isn't actually birth control, but a practice) that is safe for everyone, easy to use, and 100% effective.... is also a myth. 

While I believe that abortion should be available and safe, I also hope that it will become rare, if not completely obsolete.  However, the Victorian attitude that our society has placed upon sex ("Sex is a filthy activity--so save it for someone you love!"), and the unwillingness for select religious/conservative/etc. groups to allow for open, comprehensive dialogue on the subjects of sexuality and sexual expression, birth control, and STI prevention have landed us where we are today.  We have a long way to go before we can prevent all the unwanted and dangerous pregnancies that end in abortion. 

And, yes, I am totally on board to staff the Women's Hospital with you. :)

In all reality, until insurance companies are "required" to cover Ortho Tri-Cyclen AS WELL AS Viagra,  children who are taught sex-ed at school (instead of by their parents) are taught how to use a condom, a pill or a ring, without the insistence that anything other than abstinence guarantees AIDS and death,  and women are given the same status as a human being as the man who impregnates her and takes off... My pro-choice brethren and I will have our work cut out for us.

On the topic of Physician-Assisted Suicide:  I side with the Oregon legislature on this one.  I think it should be available (only to physicians who are recognized by the state board of medicine, and who are not subject to conscience clauses), but should have stringent steps and guidelines that are overseen by several people throughout the process.  You can read the statute here:  Death With Dignity Act  I am a staunch supporter of withdrawal of life-support, when authorized by power of attorney or advanced directives, and informed refusal of treatment, but only by a patient who is competent and voluntarily requests such conditions.  These are extensions of the autonomy that each human being deserves, and should be provided as a patient.  Suicide attempts by "traditional methods" fail all the time, and death from cancer can ravage the human body relentlessly for months.  I walk a fine line on this subject because I believe that suicide, in the majority of the population, is horrendously selfish; a fellow Mizzou student jumped off a dorm balcony about 18 months ago, and I couldn't imagine what could make someone want to die in such circumstances, at such a young age.  Having witnessed the death of my grandfather from stomach/esophageal/liver cancer, and the deterioration of my grandmother's total body muscle mass over the last 15 years, I can imagine how an unrelenting force completely out of one's own control could make a person want to control their own death by deciding how much pain he or she is willing to bear, while death is unquestionably near.  Dying on one's own terms, in comfort and without fear, is something, in my humble opinion, that terminally ill patients should be able to choose.

[Insert concise conclusion here.]

Yeah, I was always the "most heartless person in the room" during my Medical Ethics course.  I don't expect for everyone to agree with me, but I just want my side to be heard, and my reasoning to be understood.