Whoops

I can't stop laughing my sad, wry laugh that I reserve for true ridiculousness.

Via Feministing

Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief who is now the Republican National Committee's "Victory Chairman" and a name oft mentioned as a McCain VP, argues that:

There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice.

Allow me to add some emphasis. WOMEN WOULD LIKE A CHOICE.

CHOICE!
CHOICE!

Fiorina is right. Women would like a choice. Too bad McCain has opposed funding for family planning programs and voted against requiring insurance coverage of birth control. This has earned him a zero rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the lowest rating possible in the U.S. Senate.

A zero rating. Seems to me McCain is definitively anti-choice.

I'm Pro-Choice and I Blog (and vote)

I'm answering NARAL's question--why do you vote pro-choice?

I vote pro-choice because:

1. I love women and I want them to reach their full potential. For many, that means not becoming mothers.

2. I support motherhood and women's ability to choose when to become one.

3. I understand mistakes happen, condoms break, birth control pills get skipped and people get raped.

4. I know that the government does not provide enough resources to women to take care of themselves--let alone a child.

5. "Life" can exist in a pro-choice world but "choice" can't exist in one that is pro-life.

6. Women should come before fetuses.

7. I refuse to buy into the mass media (and right wing) accounts of irresponsibility and carelessness. Abortion rates are not a "problem." Women do not "use abortion as birth control." Women who choose abortion are not "ruined."

8. I can put myself in the shoes of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy.

9. Being a pro-choice politician is a sign of other pro-woman philosophies.

Why do you vote pro-choice? And if you don't vote...shame on you.

Some words on abortions, pronouns and oppression

I'm covering two controversial units in my Women's Studies class this upcoming week--the use of gender neutral pronouns and oppression. The two units are often dismissed by a lot of students. Most people shun the use of gender neutral pronouns as impossible. And students are uncomfortable with my main claim about oppression--that only women and men of color and working class can be oppressed. At the very least, the arguments provide hours of interesting class discussion and provoke some new thoughts for my students. I feel a little like my students as I read about this new concept in the abortion debate--"changing abortion's pronouns" to include the fathers' experience. The LA Times reports that counselors are encouraging women to say we had an abortion rather than I had an abortion. Further, men are being treated for post-abortion syndrome. The article tells the story of Jason Baier whose past relationships have resulted in four unplanned pregnancies that all ended in abortion. Baier speaks of the pain and regret he feels over having "four dead children." The article mentions Chris Aubert who now protests at abortion clinics with a sign that says "I regret my abortion" (although in the article he also mentions how he wouldn't have the fantastic life--filled with a happy marriage and four kids--had his ex-girlfriend not aborted her pregnancy). *head spinning*

So the article creeps me out. First let me say, I recognize the power of getting men involved in abortion rights. Further, I think men should be involved in abortion support for their significant other(s). Aubert admits that on the day his girlfriend underwent the procedure, he played softball and stuck a $200 check in her door. He called a second abortion "irrelevant" in his life. That attitude is problematic. As is the further reflection by Aubert in which he admits that he hasn't thought of the subsequent pain his ex-girlfriend may feel over the procedure. So when Aubert says he regrets HIS abortion, he means HIS not OURS. This isn't making the abortion debate more inclusive. Rather, it shifts the debate in a way that excludes women. Women should be front and center in the discussion of abortion. They should be the first to receive counseling (if they want it) and they should be the first to share their stories. Their bodies, their choice, their regret (or lack of regret). Do men experience feelings about abortions? Most certainly. Do they deserve to have the same claim to pain and experience as women? No. Feminist theorist Marilyn Frye argues that white men cannot be oppressed. They can feel pain. They can suffer from unfairness but it should not be conflated with the oppression that women and other people of color face. Similarly, males should not be able to claim as much of the abortion "pain" as this article suggests.

Most problematic is that the fathers' regret is turning into just another anti-choice argument by the right. Throughout the article the men refer to their lost "babies." One even has named his "lost son." They all "dream of the children they'll never know." This is yet another instance of humanizing the fetus while the women's material reality remain invisible.

There has to be some middle ground (hey look everyone! i'm offering up something moderate!). There has to be a way to include men in the discussion AND keep women front and center. Some may accuse me of wanting only the men who will agree with my pro-choice position to join the debate. Um, obviously. But I think there can be moderately positioned men who agree with me. There can be men who think that abortions need to be performed less and who take responsibility to ensure that happens. However, they can simultaneously believe that when their partner chooses to undergo an abortion they'll be there to support her and offer up his emotional support.

Read more from Salon

AND....

I'm back.

Well, almost. We'll arrive back in Athens on Friday. I've done lots of reading, watching and listening that I want to write about. Also...lots of great food and activities I want to write about.

I'll have pictures.

But until then...read this interview with Elizabeth Edwards. As you all know, I feaking LURVE this lady. She is so fantastic. I want her to run. But I'll settle for her being the next First Lady.

Pay particular attention to her analysis about Hillary Clinton [and her good second wave feminism pitch in the midst]. So many people ask me why Clinton isn't my pick for 08. I struggle with my answer. Edwards articulates it SO much better than I do. All I've been able to get out is "She isn't as left on women's issues as she claims..." And then I start talking about Bill* and centrism in 08**.

Look, I'm sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you're as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women's issues. I'm sympathetic -- she wants to be commander in chief. But she's just not as vocal a women's advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, "Support me because I'm a woman," and I want to say to her, "Well, then support me because I'm a woman." The question is not so much how she campaigns -- that's theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she'll govern? And I'm not convinced she'd be as good an advocate for women. She needs a rationale greater for her campaign than I've heard. When she announced her candidacy she said, "I'm in it to win it." What is that? That's not a rationale. Same with Senator Obama -- I've yet to hear a rationale. John is extremely clear about what he can accomplish and why he's the one to do it.

* Love him

** Against it

Pop Culture Abortion Politics

This weekend was movie marathon weekend. I will probably talk about all of the movies we watched at some point or another but the most pressing thing on my plate is to chat a little bit about Knocked Up--the new comedy by Judd Apatow (Freaks and Geeks, 40 Year Old Virgin). I am picky about my comedies. But I find Apatow's material VERY funny. Laugh out loud funny. This movie was no exception. I enjoyed it immensely as did the other 8 people I know saw it that day. As did the 1500+ people on IMDB.

The dialogue was realistic, the story line wasn't cheesy, and Paul Rudd was in it. I lurve Paul Rudd. Only, since the movie was about a one night stand gone wrong (Alison gets pregnant after sleeping with a guy that has no job, no motivation, no money...) you'd expect at least a [albeit funny] conversation about abortion. Alison is a young, successful woman not planning on becoming a mother. But the only option after she finds out she's pregnant is to have the baby. Granted, if she decided otherwise, there wouldn't be much need for the movie to continue. However, the lack of discussion is what bothered me.

Obviously the word "abortion" is never once uttered. There are two characters who address the option in a vague way. Jonah, a friend of Ben [the father], refers to it as the thing that "rhymes with 'shmashmortion'. " This discussion is not productive, however, because of Jonah's lack of ethos throughout the movie. He doesn't have a job. He doesn't have a successful interpersonal life. He smokes a lot of pot. The list could go on and on. He's a joke. And he is built as a character who is completely out of touch with reality. How fitting, then, that he would approach the subject of abortion. HIM. The guy totally out of touch with reality.

The second person to address abortion is Alison's mother who urges her to "take care of it." "IT." She is represented just like abortion advocates in the mainstream media--you know, the crazy people who hate babies and ignore the extremely personal aspect of mothering. She was cold and unloving. The more loving and mainstream characters never mention abortion or choice as a possibility for Alison. Alison is instructed by a doctor to "take care of" the "baby"shown on the screen at her first check up. Shortly after the visit, Alison tells Ben that she's "keeping the baby." The movie never addressed her thought process or the impact of that decision. An unrealistic storyline about her workplace struggle follows but most of the material realities of her decision are overlooked.

I know there will be people who think/comment that this is a "movie" and should be treated as such. I'm "over-reading the significance of the film" a reader may say. Obviously I disagree with that assessment. Media helps us make sense of complicated events. Even entertainment media. Maybe even especially entertainment media. This film sends a specific message about choice and responsibility. The message is covert, yes. But that makes it all the more dangerous.