Disgusting

Disgusting. Enraging. Ridiculous. These are a few words that come to mind when I think of the recent attack on womens' health. And let's face it, that's what this is.

It's easy to think this is only about abortion, because that's what gets the most press. John Kyl claimed that 90% of services offered by Planned Parenthood were abortions (the actual percentage is 3). People say they don't want their tax dollars going to cover abortions (Planned Parenthood isn't allowed to use federal funds for abortions). A commenter on the internet said he didn't want to support any organization that provided abortions (ever go to a hospital?). Lots of noise and few facts (though in 4 months, a total of 916 anti-choice bills have been introduced in 49 states and nationwide). What else does Planned Parenthood actually do? STD screenings, pap smears (and no, you can't get those at Walgreens) and pelvic exams, a laundry list of general health services (flu shots, cholesterol checks, help quitting smoking), birth control, sex education, even services specifically for men. And let's leave Planned Parenthood and other Title X folks for a minute and talk about HR 358 AKA the “Protect Life” Act. Ordinarily, a hospital that receives federal funding is obligated to provide services for anyone who walks through their door, regardless of ability to pay, etc. If the hospital is unable to provide the care, they must transfer the patient to one that can. HR 358 proposes that an anti-choice hospital can not only refuse to help a woman who needs a medical abortion, but can also refuse to transfer her to a hospital that will save her life. The “Protect Life” act, huh? And speaking of stupid wording, we all remember the “forcible rape” controversy back in February, right?

I want to know why. Someone please tell me that we as a society haven't gotten to the point where women are only good for making babies, and seen as incapable of making their own decisions (hello, South Dakota). Please? I'm going to assume, for my own sanity, that this isn't the whole story.

So what is going on? Maybe Congressman Allen West of Florida gave us a clue when he said that "these Planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women who have been neutering American men and bringing [them] to the point of this incredible weakness ... let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient." Yes, he really said "neutering men." And yes, he went on to blame the deficit on this delusional view. Misogynist? Yes. Infuriating? Of course. But outright sexism makes all of this make sense. If you hate women, or even if you just want to keep them down, why would you care if they had adequate health care? Obviously, this isn't the whole story, either, or female legislators wouldn't be backing this kind of thing.

So many other things these days seem to boil down to finances. Maybe this does, too? After all, if you're willing to allow reduced aid for food stamps or shut down a town due to "fiscal emergency", taking away womens' access to low-cost health care is just the icing on the cake. Women who have health insurance (that wasn't taken away or watered down due to HR 3) can probably afford to get annual exams and STD screenings. Women who use Planned Parenthood can't. These same lower-income folks may not have anywhere else to turn for basic health services. The same goes for abortion. Financially-privileged women can get around abortion restrictions by paying out of pocket or traveling to a state with less restrictive laws. For most women, that's not realistic. Safe abortion services are critical to health, a point I made on this blog not so long ago. Remember Kermit Gosnell? These attacks are not just pro- versus anti-choice, but have a strong classist component as well.

Still, even when sexist or classist attitudes are factored in, I still can't wrap my head around these attacks on women. Because everyone- no matter what gender, class, race or credo- deserves to be healthy. If you agree, please help however you can (contacting your legislators, writing a letter to the editor, attending a function or action, donating money or time, etc.). Even though there is a lot going on around the country, we must remind our lawmakers that women matter, too.

Taking a Break

Hello readers,

As you may know, I live in Wisconsin. Things are a little crazy here right now. I'm taking a break to try to help out. Please keep speaking up for not just women's rights, but for worker's rights!

Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill Protest from Matt Wisniewski on Vimeo.

Women and Comedy: Target Women

It certainly feels like women are being targeted right now. We've already come together to stand up for some basic rights, and it seems we'll be doing more of the same in coming months and years. Why, you might ask, is February "comedy month" at Leda's Revenge when there are is so much going on right now? Well, I could write every day about some new outrage. Surely, though, most folks reading this blog have heard of the challenges and are taking action (right?). But if they're anything like me, they might need a lift first.

Enter comedy month at Leda's Revenge. And enter Sarah Haskins and Target Women, a lighthearted look at feminism. Haskins doesn't get angry, but instead exposes just how ridiculous (and potentially funny) our culture and its media can be. Alas, Haskins left Target Women just last month, but fortunately, she left us with far more youtube-able material than the three examples below. So go ahead and laugh before rolling up your sleeves and getting to work:

Women and Comedy: Are Women Funny?

Christopher Hitchens says no in this arrogant rant. This understandably upset a lot of people. Unfortunately, research has shown that women don't make audiences laugh as much as men. Here's a clip from the British comedy panel show QI:



This doesn't mean the case is closed. Just like nearly everything in the feminist blogosphere, this can be traced back to cultural influences, at least in part. Women aren't SUPPOSED to be funny. Men are. Certainly not all men feel threatened by a funny woman's wit, but surely some do. Certainly not all women laugh less at other women, but if people believe that women are not funny, why wouldn't they laugh more at men? At a certain point, the belief that women can't make us laugh as effectively as men is sure to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Audiences will expect that women are merely chuckle-worthy and will ignore or downplay the hilarity that women are capable of.

Though Ronni Ancona joked about there being equal numbers of men and women, it does seem that there are fewer females who choose to make a living making people laugh. Perhaps this is because they won't get as many laughs, or because they've never seen themselves as or wanted to be comedians. There could be any number of reasons, but the more we see women being funny, the more we'll start to believe that they are. Funny women have been around for ages, but it wasn't until recently- due to the success and critical acclaim of women like Tina Fey, Amy Sedaris, and Sarah Silverman- that being a comedian was a normal thing for a female to do, not just an anomaly.

And finally, the obvious: humor is subjective. Maybe one woman doesn't share your sense of humor, but she is hilarious to someone else. One woman doesn't represent all women, just as anyone from any group cannot encompass everyone.

So even if you aren't a comedian, go ahead and tell your joke, no matter what your gender. Folks from all walks of life are capable of injecting some much-needed humor into our world.

Pro-Choice Is Pro-Life

I usually try to avoid this topic. Everyone has a strongly-held opinion which is extremely unlikely to change. Bringing it up will only spur arguments and strain friendships.

And then there's Kermit Gosnell. If you haven't heard about this, well, I'm afraid I can't fill you in. His actions are abhorrent and make my stomach turn. Here is a link for background.

Many people will use this to argue that abortion is unsafe. Many will use this to argue that abortion shouldn't even be legal. The first step in this process is the soon-to-be-voted-upon HR 3 , or the Smith Insurance Ban. But before we go down that road, two arguments:

First, just because one person is willing and able to perform such atrocities does not mean that all providers are dangerous, ill-trained, or unconscionable. Imagine a dentist who has had a little education in another field, say obstetrics or some type of surgery. The dentist never completes the training, yet operates outside established legal parameters and performs these services on the cheap. Would the result of these actions be to call for a moratorium on this other field? Of course not. We'd all realize that one person's actions could not render an entire field of medicine dangerous. In fact, in nearly any other situation, the discussion of safety and legality wouldn't be broached.

But most importantly, this case highlights the need for safe, affordable abortion services for women. No matter what your stance on this debate, you surely would agree that keeping women alive and well is extremely important. Hmmm. Or maybe you don't. Well then, I would argue that, if abortion becomes illegal or inaccessible, cases like these will only increase. If women are going to search out abortion services no matter what the regulations are (and history tells us that they will), I believe that having a healthy woman is more important than creating a serious risk to her well-being or even her life.

The moral of the story: this case only highlights the need for legitimate abortion providers. Let's keep that in mind and not use this as an excuse to cut services. Let's not create an environment conducive to producing the next Kermit Gosnell.

Hey Facebook

This picture is OK with Facebook. So are advertisements with topless models.

(So is joining a group denying that millions of people died in the holocaust, or one that allows hate speech against overweight folks.)

Want to post a picture of a woman nursing her child? No way, says Facebook. A warning will be sent. Pictures will be deleted. Accounts have been suspended. “Exposed breast” violates Facebook's terms of use. But looking at the above photo, I have to ask “What constitutes an exposed breast?”

So people can't post pictures of themselves breastfeeding. Who cares? When you think about it that way, it doesn't sound so terrible. There are larger issues behind this small one, though, and that makes it a big deal.

First of all, it seems to be OK to post a topless photo (with no nipple) as long as it is for profit or explicitly sexual (or oftentimes, both). Somehow, nursing a child is disgusting but turning people on is not. This seems to be true in a larger context, as well. Hooters is fine, but feeding your child in a restaurant isn't. (Does this mean one can nurse freely at Hooters?)

Second, this reflects attitudes all over the real world. If this is a punishable offense on a private Facebook page or a breastfeeding group page, what does that mean for mothers in real life? Women are shamed for feeding their infants in public. Contrary to popular belief, mothers can't necessarily “plan ahead” (thank you, Bill Maher) because babies aren't yet capable of advance planning (“I should eat now because mom wants to go out and I might offend someone if I need to eat”). Perhaps folks can cover up, but who wants to eat under a sheet? (Maybe the adults who choose not to avert their eyes when offended could use a blanket as a cover up.) When using a sheet, the chances of having a peacefully nursing baby decline and having a fussy, noisy baby becomes an ever-likelier scenario. Obviously, averting your eyes is easier than plugging you ears while trying to eat. Is it because women are so sexualized that people seem to be unable to tear themselves away from something they claim to find repellent?

Being a mom means giving up a lot. It's hard to do anything- even grocery shopping or running errands- with a small child in tow. It seems nearly impossible to leave the house and not eventually have to feed your child in public. I suppose that could be avoided if you chose to feed from formula, but the benefits of breastfeeding to both mother and baby have been well-documented, and formula can be cost-prohibitive. You could pump ahead of time (if possible) or leave your child with a babysitter or with a partner every time you wanted to go out in public. But how many times per week do people need to leave the house? That seems like a fairly unrealistic plan for most regular people. Most importantly, women should not be forced to stay at home because someone else finds the act of feeding a child obscene. Mothers shouldn't be isolated. They, too, need to be social, go to restaurants, take their older children to play in parks and learn in the world outside the home. Anyone who believes that mothers and their children should be cloistered away because “that's what you get for having a child” needs to rethink things. Their mothers surely made immeasurable sacrifices so they can espouse their anti-family attitudes, which I find completely repulsive and simplistic.

In summary: Hey Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene! If people don't like it, they can look away.