March Towards Equality Shuffle: 2 Steps Forward, 1 Step Back

Happy news item number 1: Massachusetts's State Maternity Act will now apply to fathers too! According to Feminist Law Professors:

This change means that employers in Massachusetts must now offer both mothers and fathers 8 weeks of unpaid leave following the birth or adoption of a child. It appears that much of the decision was prompted by the state having same-sex marriage and the Commission determining how to rectify the problem that a lesbian couple would have, under the statute, two parents eligible for leave but a gay male couple would have no parents eligible. Interpreting the law as sex-neutral solves this problem.

This news is naturally good for gay parents in Massachusetts, yet it will help straight couples just as much. The weeks following the birth or adoption of a child, while often very joyful, can naturally be a very stressful period as well. When mothers are the only ones given leave from work during this time, they must bear most of the initial burdens of parenthood alone. The women-only parental leave system also"perpetuate[s] sex- and gender-based hierarchy within marriage," since it establishes that care of children will fall mainly to the mother - regardless of whether or not she works. So, yeah Massachusetts for making parenting more equal for everyone! This will improve the lives of lesbians and gays, and, more generally, of women and men. This is a great example of how interconnected we all are, and why feminism should be concerned with LGBT issues.

Happy news 2: As you might have heard, California's State Supreme Court has ruled to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, and "[t]he ruling takes effect, and the weddings begin, on June 16 at 5 p.m." That's just four days away, guys! I think lots of congratulations are going to be in order!

Sad news: Of course, you had to know that some people who stand to loose ... well, nothing from allowing other love-birds to tie the knot are again making a stink:

County officials in at least two California counties say they'll stop performing all wedding ceremonies by next week, arguing that they don't have enough resources to marry both gay and straight couples.

Officials in Kern and Butte counties cited budget and staffing constraints as the rationale for halting the ceremonies. But clerks in other counties say that claim is specious. Some activists went further, arguing that the decision to stop the ceremonies amounts to poorly disguised discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

County clerks are required by law to issue marriage licenses, but the offices do not have to perform wedding ceremonies. The recent state Supreme Court decision allowing same-sex marriages takes effect after the business day on Monday.

In Kern County, Clerk Ann Barnett announced her decision only after county lawyers told her she could not refuse to marry gay couples.

Really, guys, it isn't that the good people of Kern and Butte are bigots! They just don't have the resources to marry both straight and gay couples... I mean, with all that stamping of official documents, and ... well, that's about it. But it's hard. Come to think of it, the county clerks really should be allowed to choose who gets to wed, since they have to do all the filing and stamping... it's only fair!

(photo via The Guardian)

Privilege and Feminism: Do Allies Exist?

My faith in the ability of privileged people to act as allies has been a bit shaken today. My usual confidence in the triumph of compassion over mistrust and blind self-interest faltered after reading the following:

1. A teacher wore a "Got Privilege?" tee-shirt into the fairly liberal Boston-area school in which he works, and was confronted by a co-worker, who insisted that a Puerto Rican man wearing such a shirt is 'offensive to white people.' His story prompted Anti-Racist Parent columnist Liza Talusan to ask:

Privilege. Is it really an ugly word? Why is it so difficult for people to realize and accept that they have privilege? Does having privilege mean people are bad? Selfish? Close-minded?

2. Linda Hirshman writes in The Washington Post that feminism has lost it's focus by concentrating too much on intersectionality. According to Hirshman, we have been placing so much importance on the often divisive issues of race and class, that we've failed to unify around what's best for women. I applaud Jill's response at Feministe:

...my main concern comes at the way the issues are split [by Hirshman] into authentic “feminist” issues and those “other” issues that those “other” women are trying to integrate into feminism. It’s a question of who feminism belongs to, and who is entitled to set out its goals and concerns... I don’t see why middle-class white women’s issues are more purely feminist that the issues raised by poor women or Black women or Hispanic women, or any other group of women. The issues that disproportionately effect middle-class white women are also issues colored by race and class — but because they’re the dominant race and the dominant class, that gets glossed over.

That someone who has spent a lifetime fighting for the rights of the disempowered can so easily shrug-off the challenges faced by others, so long as they are challenges that she won't have to face herself - it saddens me. That people get angry when their privilege is pointed out - angry at people who have traditionally be denied those privileges - confuses me.

All of us enjoy some type of privilege. We are able-bodied, or white, or male, or upper-class, or straight. And for all of us, the types of privilege that we enjoy will sometimes blind us to the challenges that face others. Our differences in privilege will lead us to misunderstand one another, and to mistrust and judge one another. Those of us who are white won't understand that it is a privilege to see numerous and diverse representations of people like us in the media, and won't understand how damaging and morale-beating continual disrespect can be. Those of us who are straight won't understand what a privilege it is to be able to unthinkingly treat our partners with affection no matter where we are, and to not have to worry that our family structure will be misunderstood or used as an excuse to torment our children. Those who are male will most likely not understand how common street harassment and sexual harassment can be, nor how frightening and bewildering.

With so many obstacles to understanding one another, can we ever really be allies?

(h/t to Blue Milk for leading me to the phenomenal Lesbian Dad post on explaining 'two mommies' to other parents, and to Alas, a blog for pointing to Anti-racist Parent.)

UPDATE: The back of the "Got Privilege?" tee shirt reads "If you are neutral in a situation of injustice, you have chosen to side with the oppressor." I realized after posting that the text in the photo might be a bit small to be easily read.

Quick Hits: The 45th Anniversary of the Fair Pay Act and More!

Lindsay of Female Impersonators takes some time on the 45th anniversary of the Fair Pay Act to remind us just how much work still needs to be done to ensure fair pay for all who work in the U.S.A.:

...white women are still payed 77 cents to every white man's dollar, African-American women are payed 66 cents to a white man's dollar and Latina women earn 53 cents to a white man's dollar. Across the board through all different kinds of fields and education levels, unequal pay according to gender persists in the American economy and workforce as institutionalized sexism...

Here's what you can do:

Support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which says that people can sue for pay discrimination within 180 days of their last paycheck, not 180 since their first paycheck. That means that if you've been working at the same company for five years and you've recently discovered that you're the victim of pay discrimination since hiring, you can sue your company for the past five years of pay discrimination...

Here's info on the Fair Pay campaign, a fact sheet produced by the National Women's Law Center, and most important, a letter to your senator supporting the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. If you live in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, or Virginia, one or both of your senators voted against the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the first time around. You need to write them and tell him/her to get their ass in gear and support the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

In case you were wondering, we've also written about fair pay and Lily Ledbetter - here, here, and here, for example. Remember, McCain has said that he does not support this legislation.

In 'other things I'm itching to discuss this evening':
1. The New York Times says straight couples have a lot to learn from lesbian and gay couples.
2. The Wall Street Journal discusses the marked differences in McCain and Obama's energy policies
3. The Washington Post wonders if doctors should or could pray with patients
4. The Chicago Tribune further discusses how the abortion issue will be used during the election, and what might be at stake
5. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life tells of moral dilemmas facing French doctors who are asked to perform operations to "reattach the hymens of women who want to appear as virgins." (UPDATE: for more on this story, visit Womanist Musings.)

Thoughts?

Abortion and the General Election: Rhetoric and Stratagems

Now that Barack Obama is unquestionably the Democratic nominee and thoughts have turned to the general election, many have begun to ask 'what now'? Both Obama and McCain will be looking to bolster support from their party's traditional bases. McCain will be searching to rally the Huckabee-voting fundamentalist Christians behind him, and -if the pundits are to be believed- Obama will have to work to win over Clinton's most ardent supporters. In short, both men are seeking to woo their own party's 'true believers.'

So what does this mean? Probably that we'll be hearing a whole lot more about abortion in the coming weeks. According to one recent article by Ed Stoddard, both Obama and McCain need the abortion issue to be front and center during the general election, precisely so that they can stir up the type of high-emotions that will prompt party loyalists to come out to vote in November:

"Religious conservatives may not be wildly enthusiastic about McCain but they can point to his pro-life stance as reason to stay on board," said Matthew Wilson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

...Allen Hertzke, director of Religious Studies at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, said [Obama's pro-choice stance] could help Obama secure support from some of the white women who voted in droves in the Democratic nominating contests for Sen. Hillary Clinton...

Stoddard also notes, as we have, that many voters also predict that the next president of the United States will be responsible for nominating a new Supreme Court justice:

McCain has reiterated that he would appoint [anti-choice] justices; for the Democratic base it is seen as vital that the tide of conservative appointees on the bench be rolled back.

However, focusing exclusively on preserving Roe might not be Obama's best tactic, writes Scott Lemieux of The American Prospect:

Yes, it's true that replacing John Paul Stevens and/or Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a Republican appointee will be bad for abortion rights, although this is likely to occur by further draining content from Casey rather than overturning Roe outright.
But even when it comes to women's rights, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The enforcement of civil rights protections for women is likely to be much less in a Republican administration, for example. The global gag order will remain firmly in place. And in general, four more years of a tax-cut-supporting, massive-defense-spending GOP president will not only make any kind of serious progressive reform (much of which disproportionately benefits women even if not specifically targeted to do so) virtually impossible for four more years but will also make it more difficult in the future.

So, I ask - how will you be talking to your politically conservative and undecided friends and family in the days to come? If you know any former Clinton supporters who are considering not casting a vote for Obama come November (I've never met one, but they are widely rumored to exist), what arguments will you be using to convince them?

No Reason Not to Try? Indeed!

Due to the resurgence of the roller derby posts, I’d like to submit a wee little post about the excellent things some women are doing. I wish I could proudly say “the excellent things some people are doing”. Still when it’s a woman doing it, it becomes news. And isn’t that the case? And isn’t that what we are striving to reverse here?

My favorite quote from the article is:

You can keep a girl off the wrestling team and you can keep her off the boxing team and you can keep her from playing professional football, as a general rule, but you can't keep a woman from climbing K-2.

Here is to the day when the "The higher you go, the less women you see," is no longer a reality.

The LGBT Equality Caucus and the Silent T

This week, Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Barney Frank (D-Mass.) announced the formation of the House of Representatives’ LGBT Equality Caucus. The only two openly gay members of Congress, co-chairs Baldwin and Frank have before acted as advocates for the LGBT community. The formation of the bi-partisan caucus, comprised of 52 members of the House of Representatives, marks a very hopeful step towards ensuring equal rights for all U.S. citizens, regardless of orientation or gender identity. This show of support comes at a crucial time, and the newly formed caucus already has a full agenda:

“Our work this session on legislation combating hate crimes and employment non-discrimination highlighted the need and the desire people had for more information,” Baldwin said, referring to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). The House passed ENDA, but the Senate has yet to take it up this session. The hate crimes measure was attached to the Defense authorization bill, but later yanked.

Clearly, much work needs to be done to ensure that these two important pieces of legislation are passed, and it is reassuring to see so many members of Congress pledge to support equal rights. However, any joy over the formation of the LGBT Equality Caucus must be undercut by the realization of just what a difficult battle even basic protections against violence and discrimination face. For example, although ENDA narrowly passed the House vote, it only protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation - all protections for transgenders were stripped from the bill out of fear that it would not pass if gender identity were included.

Perhaps what needs to be done is to humanize the issue, which should not be treated as a question of politics, but one of basic compassion. This piece from Current TV does just that:



(Many thanks to reader Ada for pointing us to this video!)

Sure, Tricking Babies is Fun, But is it Right?

From Women's Bioethics Blog, here is a little motherhood moral dilemma for your Friday morning:

A New York Times article ( “Experts Question Placebo Pill for Children” --May 27, 2008) raises the question of whether giving children placebo pills for minor childhood illnesses is an ethical practice. Based on the premise that pharmacologically inert compounds can actually produce improvements in some medical conditions, Jennifer Buettner, a mother of 3 small children, developed a cherry-flavored chewable dextrose tablet, the first branded, pharmaceutical grade placebo. The therapeutic effect is based on the power of suggestion. If parents use the placebo to “trick” their children into thinking that they are taking real medicine, the children will consequently feel better.

Notice that the brand name, Obecalp, is simply placebo spelled backwards. Mommies and daddies are tricky, no?

Of course, there might be a catch to this 'magic feather' catch-all cure for minor childhood complaints, as the New York Times points out. First of all, clinical studies that use placebos are usually double blinded - neither the patient nor the person giving the placebo knows its a fake, making it easier to fool the patient. So Obecalp might not work if the moms and dads handing it out know its a sham. Yet, your parents probably knew there was no Santa, and they still managed to fool you for years (man, were you gullible), so I'm not buying the kids-will-see-through-this argument.

A graver concern is that fake medicines could condition kids into thinking that popping pills is the solution to every problem:

“Kids could grow up thinking that the only way to get better is by taking a pill,” Dr. Brody said. If they do that, he added, they will not learn that a minor complaint like a scraped knee or a cold can improve on its own.

Dr. David Spiegel, a psychiatrist who studies placebos at the Stanford School of Medicine, said conditioning children to reach for relief in a pill could also make them easy targets for quacks and pharmaceutical pitches later. “They used to sell candied cigarettes to kids to get them used to the idea of playing with cigarettes,” he said.

Despite the controversy, Obecalp went on the market on June 1st - you can now buy it over-the-counter. So, we are left with the questions - is it ethical to give your kids a fake drug and tell them that it is medicine? What if you tell them it's just sugar, but it might help them feel better anyway? Will Obecalp create a psychological dependency on pills? Is this anything new, or have parents been taking advantage of the placebo effect since parenting began?

(Oh, and for the 'why is this a feminist issue' folks... 1. parenting continues to be a central concern for many women, and it unfortunately is a task that falls largely on mothers, whether they have a partner or not. 2. I'm a feminist, I want to talk about it, and this is my blog, gosh darn it!)

(Magic feather via)

Look, Mom! and What to Expect from Feminist Blogging

Part I: Blushes. A writer I admire likes me back! I know, not because I sent her a 'do you like me - yes, no, maybe' note, but because she gave me an award! It looks like this:

Yeah! I have so many people to thank... This also means that I'm to give 10 awards to other emerging writers I admire, so promote your latest projects in the comments!

Part II: The blogging life. It really is nice to get noticed by someone you read, because it can be a rough, rough world out here in the feminist blogosphere. In case you're thinking of starting your own, here are the steps in creating a feminist blog:

1. Sign up. This is not as easy as you'd think. First, you have to choose a user name. Your first name is taken. Your nickname is taken. Your last name... taken. You begin to realize that you aren't as individualistic as you thought. Try alternate spellings of your first, nick, and last names - but they're all taken. Try plays on words, foreign-language equivalents of you name, names of your favorite characters from films and novels - it turns out that all your interests are trite, and you aren't as witty as you'd like to think either. Finally, in desperation, look around the room and name yourself after whatever happens to be in view - bluechair or tatteredcarpet, perhaps. It is done, set in stone - you have a blog name. You immediately think... 'You know, I don't really like my name much...' This will be your online identity... forever. Unless, of course, you decide to change it. Now, choose a URL. Plan an hour for this, because your first 50 ideas... taken.

2. Post. You will love it. You've formed words and put them into the world. In your eyes, your post is beautiful. You will wait for readers and comments. No one stops by to confirm your genius. Your beautiful post is one of billions of posts, floating unnoticed in the ether.

3. Repeat step 2, repeat step 2, repeat step 2...

4. When you begin to wonder if blogging might be a dumb hobby, go do something else for awhile, resolving to forget about the blog entirely. I recommend playing Wii. Do not delete your blog. After a couple of weeks, you'll want to write a feminist critique of Wii - for your blog.

5. Finally, someone you don't personally know will comment. You'll install Site Meter and realize that you have tens - that's right tens! - of regular readers, plus tons of people coming in through Google looking for... well, this is a PG site, folks, so I won't tell you what they're looking for... The realization that someone is reading will cause two conflicting desires- the drive to work harder and make your blog more insightful and eloquent, and the desire to sit in front of Site Meter all day, not posting, but simply watching what odd searches lead people to you, imagining their bizarre lives. (I get at least 10 hits a day from people looking for 'sexy turkey' - it took me awhile to realize that people wanted pictures of women (or men) from Turkey, not shots of poultry striking provocative poses).

6. Trolls will find you. Some will call you dumb for claiming that sexism exists. Others will use sexist language to abuse you, telling you that you must be stupid or icky because you're female. Most will do both, simultaneously. Do not be tricked into thinking you can save them from their meanness and stupidity with your rational arguments - the mark of a troll is that they don't respond to logic, they just show up to hurl vacuous insults. Every feminist blogger has to decide how to handle her own trolls, but there are a variety of tactics.

7. About this time, though, you'll realize that other, sane people are leaving really interesting comments on your posts, sending you insightful emails, and sometimes even referencing your words in their own posts. This will make you so happy. You've found a feminist community! You'll realize that blogging really is satisfying, even if it never gets you that book deal. (If anyone wants to offer me a book deal, though... I'm listening...) And maybe, just maybe, someone whose words inspire you will acknowledge you by giving you an award.

And then what will you do? Repeat step 2, repeat step 2, repeat step 2...

You'd didn't expect to now get an award every day, did you? Perhaps you should go play some Wii...

(Troll art via, hands via)

Sen. Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination

"...because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another a journey that will bring a new and better day to America." - Sen. Barack Obama

Last night, Sen. Barack Obama earned enough delegates to secure the Democratic presidential nomination. I must admit, I'm excited about his candidacy and feel very hopeful that he might be the next president of the United States of America, and a good one too. Whether or not you supported Sen. Hillary Clinton during the primary, I am interested in hearing people's views on her reluctance to suspend her campaign, and the idea being promoted by some - like founder of Black Entertainment Television Robert L. Johnson - that she should be Sen. Obama's running mate.

UPDATE: If you're more interested in reading other people's opinions than writing about your own, however, I recommend:
1. Ms. Ann Drist's discussion of how she slowly warmed up to Sen. Obama, after being a Clinton supporter.
2. Ezra Klein's hopeful piece entitled 'A New Normal,' over at The American Prospect.
3. Racialicious's post on how Clinton's words are already being used against Obama in Republican attack ads.
4. FeministGal's article on why she finally feels patriotic, thanks to Sen. Obama.
5. Angry Black Woman's post 'History Has Been Made, and Its Bittersweet'
6. What About Our Daughters? worries about more ridiculous and cruel smear campaigns against Michelle Obama
7. I'm coming to this late, but if you haven't read Melissa McEwan's powerful "For the Record," you should. (h/t: Feminist Law Professors)

(photograph of Barack and Michelle Obama via The New York Times)

Questions and Answers from Iraqi Women

This week, the New York Times Baghdad Bureau Blog has begun posting answers to questions for Iraqi women submitted by Times readers. The first post of the series includes questions about everyday life in Iraq since the US troops arrived. Daily worries for the women interviewed include security, the lack of electricity, and raising children in a society facing huge cultural changes. The way women are treated by U.S. troops and government officials is also a concern:

As we talked on a busy street corner, Ms. Abbas began to list the various ways that women are not respected in Iraq today. “They are searching us in an unreasonable way,” Ms. Abbas said. Women are shouted at in government offices and forced to pay bribes, she added. Finally, my interpreter asked, “Don’t you feel any freedom now?” Ms. Abbas answered: “What is the meaning of freedom? There is no security!”

As the week progresses, the Baghdad Bureau Blog will be posting answers to questions about a variety of issues. You can still submit questions for Iraqi women in the comments section of each new Baghdad Bureau post. Also, for more about the Baghdad Bureau Blog, you can read our previous post about it here.

Feminism, Love and Marriage

There was once a time when a marriage proposal might sound something like this:

...being, as I am, to inherit this estate after the death of your honoured father, (who, however, may live many years longer,) I could not satisfy myself without resolving to chuse a wife from among his daughters, that the loss to them might be as little as possible, when the melancholy event takes place - which, however, as I have already said, may not be for several years. This has been my motive, my fair cousin, and I flatter myself it will not sink me in your esteem. And now nothing remains for me but to assure you in the most animated language of the violence of my affection. To fortune I am perfectly indifferent, and shall make no demand of that nature on your father, since I am well aware that it could not be complied with; and that one thousand pounds in the 4 per cents. which will not be yours till after your mother's decease, is all that you may ever be entitled to. On that head, therefore, I shall be uniformly silent; and you may assure yourself that no ungenerous reproach shall ever pass my lips when we are married.

Sure, the above excerpt from Mr. Collins' proposal to Elizabeth in Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is exaggerated a bit, for laughs. Yet, when taken with Charlotte Lucas' acceptance of a similar proposal,

Without thinking highly either of men or of matrimony, marriage had always been her object; it was the only honourable provision for well-educated young women of small fortune, and must be their pleasantest preservative from want,

Mr. Collins' certainty that he cannot be rejected - his sense of entitlement - gives us a glimpse into what marriage has sometimes been.

Yet, this weekend I celebrated my one-year anniversary, and I have to say - marriage is wonderful. Seriously - marriage has meant recognition of the fact that we mean to plan our lives together - not to mention a great honeymoon and someone to watch Star Wars with whenever we want (the original trilogy, of course). Yet, as we sat drinking sangria and reminiscing about our first year this evening, my husband said, "You know, the opportunity we had to fall in love and get married free from all those social and financial obligations and responsibilities is a real luxury, even now." He is right, of course, and I have the sinking suspicion that he's a better feminist than I am.

So tonight I ask, how has feminism intersected with other people's love lives? Are you married, opposed to marriage, or still struggling for the right to be married? Have you managed to find a romantic relationship that is freeing rather than confining? Do you believe those types of relationships even exist?

Your Racism Makes You Anxious? Awww, Poor Baby!

From NPR:

A new study from Northwestern University's Department of Social Psychology finds that many whites worry about inadvertently getting into trouble for seeming biased. As a result, says study author Jennifer Richeson, Caucasians seek to avoid situations where bias might be revealed, such as in the company of black people...

How to make interracial interactions less anxious? "We need to get out of the business of giving the scarlet letter brand of 'bigot,' " Richeson says. That type of label is really not useful, she says, citing the example of Don Imus drawing fire for racially charged comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team in 2007. Imus later met with the Rev. Al Sharpton, one of his most vocal critics, and insisted he's not a racist.

Whoa! NPR and Prof. Richeson, I'm going to have to just stop you right there. Are you really willing to say that white people's insecurities about exposing their own racists attitudes should be handled more delicately? And Don Imus is your example? The man called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" - this wasn't a joke between friends gone wrong, he wanted to insult these women and framed his insult in racially and sexually demeaning terms. If people are going around saying that sort of thing, they need to know that it is absolutely not okay.

Perhaps, rather than encouraging people of color to say nothing in the face of racist comments, we might instead focus on teaching all people to respond more productively when we are made to acknowledge our prejudices. In particular, it seems like Prof. Richeson, her interviewers, and the people she defends might all need to go over rules 2 and 3 again, as laid out in Alas, A Blog's useful guide, "How Not To Be Insane When Accused of Racism":

2) Take the criticism seriously - do not dismiss it without thinking about it. Especially if the criticism comes from a person of color - people of color in our society tend by necessity to be more aware of racism than most Whites are, and pick up on things most Whites overlook. (On the other hand, don’t put the people of color in the room in the position of being your advocate or judge.)

3) Don’t make it about you. Usually the thing to do is apologize for what you said ... resist your desire to turn the [conversation] into a seminar on How Against Racism You Are. The subject of the conversation is probably not “your many close Black friends, and your sincere longstanding and deep abhorrence of racism.”

Unfortunately, the whole NPR interview with Prof. Richeson is pretty shallow and insulting. At its best, it suggests that we perhaps need to think about the way we apply the terms prejudice, bias, and bigotry. At worst, it is a ridiculous ploy to shame people into silence. As for the "study" that prompted the interview - there is no link to the actual data, but it reportedly involved only 30 people. The methods are not described.