walk for choice

February has been a rough month for women, and I suspect that things aren't going to turn around tomorrow simply because it marks the start of Women's History Month. So far, a Georgia state legislator has introduced legislation to criminalize miscarriages. The punishment? Death. A South Dakota state legislator introduced legislation to expand justifiable homicide to include the killing of abortion doctors. And among other things, the House Republicans have launched their own war one women. Congressman Mike Pence introduced an amendment to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. It passed in the House, and should be coming to a vote in the Senate in the next couple of days.

Planned Parenthood provides many critical medical services for women, particularly low income women. Federal funding to Planned Parenthood is not used for abortions, and abortion makes up only 3 percent of its services. It is estimated that one in five women have used services at Planned Parenthood at least once in their lifetimes (I am not ashamed to say that I am one of them. In the period of time between graduating from college and getting insurance at my new job, I went to Planned Parenthood. I don't know what I would have done otherwise.). Planned Parenthood provides pap smears, breast exams, STI and HIV testing, and a host of other services. But perhaps most importantly, Planned Parenthood provides access to contraceptives that prevent unintended pregnancies, which, as you can well imagine, are a precursor to abortion.

It is sometimes easy to forget that getting birth control is difficult for some women. What makes it so difficult? A lack of health insurance. When you have health insurance, obtaining contraceptives is relatively simple. You make an appointment with your doctor, submit to a medical exam, and you get a prescription. It's pretty cheap and simple. But when you have no health insurance, obtaining contraceptives is more costly and more difficult. And that's why funding Planned Parenthood is so important. I just read a study today that said that levels of funding to Planned Parenthood is linked to rates of unintended pregnancies. More funding=fewer unintended pregnancies. And you know what that means? Fewer abortions. Of course, not all unintended pregnancies result in abortion (about half do), but abortions don't happen without unintended pregnancies.

At this point, you may be thinking to yourself, "well, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex." But time and time again, studies have demonstrated that abstinence simply doesn't work. Texas teaches abstinence, yet it has the country's 3rd highest teenage pregnancy rate. I suspect that abstinence also doesn't work particularly well for non-adolescents. (As much as children would like to believe that their parents don't have sex, I suspect that they still do, even though they may think their child-rearing years are long over.) Does anyone really abstain from sex simply to avoid pregnancy? I doubt it. Women have long been practicing methods of birth control, ranging from herbs to abortion, way before the FDA approved the pill (which was in 1960). So while some may preach abstinence, I sincerely suspect that most people do not practice it.

This past weekend, Drew and a couple friends and I headed to Los Angeles for the Walk for Choice, a march to protest funding cuts to Planned Parenthood. I was proud to be a part of it, and it was critical that we go and show our support for reproductive rights.

There was a good turnout, and the crowd was pretty diverse. There were walks in major cities throughout the United States. I was also pleased to see so many young people (okay, I know that it was a "walk," which is possibly more likely to attract a younger demographic, but it's not like it was grueling). Anyway, I'm impressed because I think that it can be rather difficult to get my generation fired up about reproductive rights. For one thing, we have grown up in a time when abortion was completely legal. This is good of course, because we are free to make the reproductive decisions that are right for us. But at the same time, I can see why it might be tough to us fired up about reproductive rights.

We don't remember a time when women were dying from botched abortions. We have no recollection of a time when a pregnancy out of wedlock left women with 3 choices: get married, be sent away to a maternity home and surrender your baby for adoption (against your will), or submit to an illegal and often dangerous abortion. Having a child out of wedlock is not as stigmatized today as it was in the pre-Roe days. And above all, women today have the freedom to be mothers AND work outside the home or get an education. Their destiny isn't necessarily to be wives and mothers.

Abortion rights, and other reproductive rights, are not a done deal. I have always been aware of this, but I was reminded of it again this month. The fight for reproductive rights may not have the same urgency as it did in the 1970s, but it remains critical.

release the kagan!

In case you haven't heard, Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring from the Supreme Court. at the end of this term. Nominated by Ford, a Republican, in 1975, Stevens became one of the leading liberals on the Court. Earlier this week, Obama announced his pick to replace Stevens: Elena Kagan. Kagan is currently the Solicitor General (first female to hold that post) and is the former dean of the Harvard Law School (first female to do that too). If confirmed, Kagan would be the 3rd woman on the Supreme Court, and the 4th woman ever to be to a Supreme Court justice.

Some commentators have pointed out that when Stevens leaves, there will be no Protestants or veterans on the Court. Now, I'm all for diversity, but let's not forget that there were no women on the Supreme Court until 1981. And women are about half the U.S. population. Currently, there are 2 women on the Supreme Court, which is about 22%. Women are better represented on the highest court in the land than in Congress, where there are 17 female Senators and 76 female Representatives (out of 100 senators and 435 house reps).

The commentary on diversity is especially interesting. It appears that a diverse Supreme Court (or any other branch) is important because it suggests that it will be a representative body. People are concerned with not only the gender diversity of the Court but also the religious diversity as well. We're not concerned with only gender and religion; a collection of op eds in the New York Times made a case for other kinds of diversity: age, sexual orientation, race, atheism, military background, etc. This concern with diversity and representation seems counterintuitive; after all, aren't judges supposed to be neutral? Shouldn't they check their backgrounds, experiences, and ideologies at the door? It's an interesting notion. If they are supposed to be neutral and impartial, is diversity then relatively unimportant?

anti abortion vs. anti immigration

I don't know whether this is funny or sad. The Nebraska state legislature killed a bill that pitted 2 issues on the conservative agenda against one another: anti abortion v anti immigration. It was in yesterday's LA Times, and you can read it here. Nebraska is a strong anti abortion state, and a state legislator introduced a bill that would provide prenatal care for illegal (I prefer the term undocumented) immigrants.

Here is the question: Should the state provide prenatal care for unborn children of undocumented immigrants? Should the state protect those fetuses?

Here is the answer: Apparently, not all fetuses are worthy of life and protection. In the fight for the right to life, some potential lives are more valuable than others. The right to life isn't for everyone.

Nebraska is about to discover the unintended consequences of a lack of prenatal care. The article ended with an account of a woman who cannot afford prenatal care. Other women are skipping appointments because they also cannot pay. Anyway, the pregnant woman already has a 2 year old and is struggling financially. She had an abortion, and others will most likely follow suit.

mlk and milk

If you recall, last Monday was Martin Luther King, Jr. day. There were some ceremonies honoring and remembering King, we didn't have classes, the banks were closed, the post offices were closed, the public library was closed, and we didn't get mail that day. Despite these closures, our daily routines continued and for lots of people, MLK day probably went by unnoticed.

So I'm using MLK day to talk about Harvey Milk. Milk was the first openly gay man to be elected to political office in the United States. This was in the 1970s, probably way before anyone dreamed of lobbying for same-sex marriage. You are probably more familiar with Milk because of the eponymous movie, starring Sean Penn.

At the end of last summer, the California State Assembly passed legislation to create a Harvey Milk Day. (I think that it's slated to be May 22) Of course, there was opposition, presumably because some people think that having a day to honor Milk means that now kids are going to learn how to have gay sex in school. (never mind that most current sex ed curriculums barely cover hetero sex, but that's for a different blog post) When I was reading coverage about the Milk Day legislation and its opposition, I thought of Martin Luther King, Jr. If Milk day is anything like MLK day, it will most likely go by unnoticed. Sure, there will be ceremonies and kids might get a superficial lesson on discrimination and equal rights, but Milk day, like MLK day, will hardly be earth shattering.

happy holidays

Here I am, blogging to you from Virginia. It's been nice here so far, not cold and lots of snow. On Monday, we went out to cut down a Christmas tree, trudging through about two feet of snow. But it was worth it- the tree is beautiful and all gussied up with tinsel and lights. I'll have pictures for you when I return to California.

Virginia is nice- we're in the rural southwestern part. It has been a bit of a culture shock- no Asian people, funny accents, outdated hairstyles, and lots of camouflage. And people here are nice and polite- they actually say 'I'm sorry' when they bump into you and 'Excuse me.' Sales clerks actually greet you and smile. I've already been to the Waffle House once, and I'm sure there will be more visits in the future.

So I noticed the following quote floating around on Facebook: "They may want to take Christ out of Christmas, but they can never take Christ out of me. If you are proud to be a Christian and are not ashamed of Christ then post this as your status for 1 day as a light to the world. Most people will be to ashamed or scared to do this. If you agree, copy and paste to your wall."

I know that there are people (ahem, Christian) who have themselves all in a tizzy because there is a contingent of people who for a variety of reasons- maybe to be politically correct, maybe because they oppose cultural imperialism, maybe because they don't believe in god, maybe because they don't celebrate Christmas, or maybe because they want to acknowledge the existence of other holidays like Hanukkah or Kwanzaa- don't say Merry Christmas. A dominant subgroup is all up in arms because other people realize that Christmas isn't the only holiday celebrated during the month of December. And those people are all pissed off because we say Happy Holidays these days and can't have mangers and crucifixes in public places. Now we acknowledge other holidays, and boy, these people are hoppin' mad because we are taking the Christ out of Christmas.

Here's a newsflash: Christ was taken out of Christmas with the advent of Santa Claus, Black Friday, Hallmark cards, the gift giving frenzy, and Rudolph. Apparently, Christmas is about the gifts. Even in this shitty economy, people are lining up to save money on gifts and go mad to find the 'perfect' gift. Apparently, the radical notion that forgoing gifts might be a good idea at a time like this hasn't crossed most people's minds.

Don't blame the atheists or those who, in the interest of promoting cultural diversity, acknowledge other holidays. Don't blame them for taking Christ out of Christmas. Santa Claus already did that, and so did Black Friday. So if you're pissed that Christmas isn't about Christ, forgo the gifts. Put your money where your mouth is, and stay out of the shopping malls.

Oh, and happy fucking holidays.

diamonds aren't this girls best friend

In the last post, I talked about blood diamonds and the fact that we can't be certain that so-called conflict free diamonds are truly conflict free. Many people have pointed out that synthetic diamonds may be a way for us to have our cake and eat it too. Not so fast there, people. Diamonds are problematic not only for human rights reasons, but also for feminist reasons too.

Diamonds symbolize love and commitment to many people, but to me, they are patriarchal. Diamonds symbolize ownership and male dominance. Engagement rings show the world that a woman is "taken," spoken for, betrothed. They show that a woman belongs to someone else. Engagement rings, and diamonds in particular, are a way for men to symbolize their possession of a woman.

Diamond engagement rings may not have this meaning today, but the practice originated in patriarchal traditions (as did marriage, of course, but that's another blog post). And the vestiges of ownership and dominance remain: ever notice how men rarely wear engagement rings? I know many married men, and only one wore an engagement ring (soon to be two). Arguably, diamond rings are so expensive (2 months salary, right?) that it's probable that there isn't much money left to purchase an engagement ring for a man.

Diamonds are also a proxy for wealth, and the size of the rock is associated with the man's capacity to provide for his future wife. Women's bodies have been used to symbolize men's wealth and value, and diamonds are one way of doing so.

People may no longer associate diamonds with ownership, wealth, or male dominance, but I supposed that tradition dictates that we continue sealing the deal with diamond engagement rings. I only wish that more people would understand the ramifications of their actions and reject the lure of pretty shiny baubles, both for human rights reasons and because it is demeaning towards women.

blood diamonds

The other day, I was reading the paper and came across an op-ed imploring holiday shoppers to forgo diamonds mined in Zimbabwe. The author says that we should reject diamonds from Zimbabwe because they could have been mined in areas under the control of rebel groups who engage in torture and use child labor to control diamond production. So the author thinks that prior to purchasing diamonds, we should ask jewelers of the diamond's origin and refuse to buy it if it's from Zimbabwe. Sure. Like that's going to happen. Society cares more about diamonds and symbolizing wealth more than African people a continent away.

I'm against diamonds for a host of reasons. I recently finished reading Blood Diamonds: Tracing the Deadly Path of the World's Most Precious Stones by Greg Campbell. The production of diamonds is horrifying and disgusting, and the United States is the largest diamond consumer in the world. This is what our consumption supports: civil war, death, torture.

The book traces diamond mining in the 1990s in Sierra Leone and how diamond profits fuels a bloody civil war. To control the diamond mines, production, and profits, rebel groups such as the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) kill, rape, and torture the people in Sierra Leone. The most common way the RUF induces terror and asserts control over the civilians is amputation- usually the arms, but also lips, ears, breasts, and tongues.

Capturing a diamond mine is easy: the RUF show up at a mine with rifles and forces the workers to hand over the diamonds. Powerless workers comply because the only other option is death. The RUF then uses its diamond profits to buy more guns and for retirement funds. Oh, and diamond profits have also been linked to the funding of terrorist attacks, most notably the September 11th attacks on the US.

Efforts to combat illegitimate diamond mining have induced peacekeeping missions by the United Nations and the Sierra Leone government, as well as export controls like the Clean Diamond Act and the Kimberley Process. However, diamond smuggling is so rampant and quite simple that one can never be sure that so-called conflict free diamonds are truly conflict free. You will never know if your diamond is legitimately mined or a result of brutality, death, and mutiliation.

Diamond mining is literally back breaking work, and even diamonds that are legitimately produced are mined under harsh labor conditions. Workers work from sunrise to sunset, and there are no lunch breaks or days off. They earn 2 cups of rice and the equivalent of 50 cents per day. Our society bemoans sweat shops and Wal Mart, but there is a lack of comparable anger over the horrifying conditions of diamond mining. Apparently, cheaply made clothes violate human rights, but diamonds do not.

Diamonds have come to symbolize love and commitment, and whenever I see them, I always wonder how many Africans died for them. I am truly ashamed that our consumerist society supports terror, death, and mutilation. Either we don't know it, or we choose to ignore this fact.

violence against women

Here is a blog post in which I bemoan violence against women.

A 15 old girl was gang raped by at least seven males after a Homecoming dance last weekend. She was waiting for a ride, from her parents I think. The gang rape last 2-1/2 hours. Did I mention that about a dozen people passed by and did absolutely nothing? Some laughed. I didn't know that rape was a laughing matter. Some took pictures. I didn't know that rape was a photo opportunity.

Contrary to popular belief, rape isn't about sex. It's about violence against women. It's about patriarchy. It's about power and control. Men don't rape because they can't get laid. They don't rape because they have uncontrollable sexual urges. Men don't rape because a pretty woman walks by and they can't control themselves. Rape has nothing to do with sex. Today, a 47 year old man plead guilty to raping and murdering a 93 year old woman. I told you rape wasn't about sex. Rape is about male dominance. It's about men who think that it is their god-given right to exert power and authority over women.

I don't know why it is difficult for society to acknowledge violence against women. I also don't know why it is difficult to recognize that violence is rooted in patriarchy and the social construction of masculinity. When are we going to learn that it is problematic to equate masculinity with power, control, and violence? When are we going to learn that these qualities do not make a man?

The other day, I read an article about campus violence. The columnist was referring to a recent stabbing of a UCLA student. As usual, he cited mental health issues. Why is it that every time there is an incident of campus violence, we turn straight to mental health and point our finger? It is as if we believe that if only the perpetrator had sought help for his mental health issues, none of this would have happened. If only a professor had intervened and noticed when a student was down in the dumps. If only. Fuck you, that's what I say to mental health issues. Not because they aren't real, and not because they don't matter. But because mental health isn't to blame.

When I tick off incidents of campus violence, Virginia Tech, Columbine, and Northern Illinois come to mind. And UCI. About a month ago, a graduate student was charged with shooting his ex-wife. It was over a custody dispute. He shot her in front of their son. She died. When this information spread, naturally people wondered about this student's mental health status. Yes, grad school is stressful. Yes, it's tiring and students work a lot. Yes, grad school is isolating and there may be higher rates of depression among grad students than among the general population. But most grad students do not shoot and kill other people, let alone former spouses.

If you think about campus violence, there is a pattern. Those wielding the guns or the knives are men. All men. Show me some incidents involving women, and maybe I'll give mental health explanations some credence. But until then, I'm going to continue to blame society and patriarchy. I'm going to continue to blame our construction of masculinity and how boys are socialized to be men.

By the way, here's the latest on Roman Polanski. The 13 year old victim's testimony unequivocally shows that Polanski committed rape. He was 43. He used his power and authority as a director, a man, and as an adult to take advantage of the girl, drug her, and rape her.

Now that I have sufficiently depressed you, I'm not even going to try to make it better.

more on Polanski

Here is the link to an excellent article in today's LA Times, "Polanski's Defenders Lose Sight of the True Victim," by Steve Lopez. (I have already written to Lopez, commending him on a great article.) Lopez does an excellent job educating the readers on the trial, illustrating the disparities in power between Polanski and the young girl, showing how Polanski's defenders are completely misguided, and arguing that justice must be served.

roman polanski

In case you haven't heard, film director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland and may be extradited to face sentencing for a 1977 child rape case. Since I have been studying violence against women, the anti-rape movement, and high profile rape trials (including this one), I feel compelled to comment on the case.

Here are the facts: In 1977, Roman Polanski lured a 13 year old girl to Jack Nicholson's home while the actor was away. The girl, an aspiring model, thought she was there for a photo shoot. Instead, Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized her. He was 44 years old. Polanski was convicted on rape and drug charges, and faced with a possible 50 year sentence, he fled to France, where as a French citizen he found protection against extradition.

The revival of this case has fueled an intense debate. Some argue that Polanski , now 76, has paid the price for his crime, and it is not worth pursuing a 32 year old case. Others argue that justice must be served. I bet I don't have to tell you which I side I'm on.

In yesterday's issue of the LA Times, columnist Patrick Goldstein argues that the district attorney's efforts to apprehend Polanski are misguided, especially considering that the prison budget has been cut and prisons are overcrowded.

Below is my letter to the editor (it's short since I'm allotted only 150 words):

Contrary to Goldstein’s article, Polanski has hardly paid the price for his crime. Since 1977, he lived in France making movies. He travels, owns a chalet, and is married with two children. He won an Oscar in 2002.

Most rapes go unreported and unresolved, and not prosecuting Polanski sends the message that violence against women and children is not worth pursuing. Rape is rooted in power disparities and gender inequalities, and this is a case of an adult taking advantage of a child, a man victimizing a young woman, and a film director coercing a burgeoning model. The case has been settled and Polanski has been publicly forgiven, but it does not negate the fact that he committed a crime and justice must be served. To ignore this fact perpetuates the notion that violence against women and children is a lesser crime and not to be taken seriously.

This morning, I also took the time to respond directly to Goldstein. Here is that letter:
I completely disagree with your seeming assessment that Polanski's 32 year old case is not worth pursuing.

You seem to think that the DA’s office could better spend its resources on more worthy causes and more pressing issues. However, most rapes go unreported and unresolved, and allowing Polanski to continue to go free sends the message that violence against women and children are crimes that are not worth prosecuting. Rape is rooted in power disparities and gender inequalities, and this high profile trial illustrates the obvious disparities of power and authority. This is a case of an adult taking advantage of a child, a man victimizing a young woman, and a film director coercing a burgeoning model. Even though the case has been settled in a civil suit and the victim has publicly forgiven Polanski, it does not negate the fact that he committed a crime and justice must be served. To ignore this fact perpetuates the notion that violence against women and children is a lesser crime and not to be taken seriously.

You also write that Polanski has already “paid a horrible, soul-wrenching price for the infamy surrounding his actions.” You even goes so far as to compare Polanski’s case with that of Jean Valjean. Polanski has suffered tragedies including his escape from the Krakow ghetto, the death of his mother in the gas chambers, and the brutal murder of his pregnant wife, Sharon Tate. However, each one of these events preceded the 1977 rape. Polanski has hardly paid a price for this crime. Instead, he has spent the last thirty years living in France and making movies. He went on to marry and have two children. He travels throughout Europe and owns a chalet in a Swiss ski resort. You claim that Polanski’s career has “clearly suffered from his inability to work in Hollywood,” but I would hardly consider his Academy Award for best director in 2002 to be suffering.

By the way, Valjean was convicted for stealing a loaf of bread. Polanski drugged and raped a young girl. These two crimes are obviously incomparable and of completely different magnitudes.

So there it is. I'll keep you posted and let you know if my letter to the editor gets published.

a mockery of marriage

In the paper today, I read a letter to the editor that said that if gay people are allowed to get married, it will make a mockery of marriage. That's right, gay people will contaminate marriage and ruin it for everyone. What, pray tell, will become of this sacred institution if we let gays in? So, I came up with my own list of things that make a mockery of marriage. Here goes:

Teenagers. In some states, teenagers as young as 14 can get married as long as they have parental consent or a judicial waiver. That's right kids, you can't vote, buy cigarettes, legally drink, or even buy Sudafed, but you can get married as long as your parents approve. (By the way, I'm guessing that the probability of parental consent increases if one of those teens is knocked up. Or named Bristol Palin. Or both.)

Weddings. I read somewhere that the average wedding costs around $25,000. And Glamour tells me that the average bride spends an average of 30 hours a week planning her wedding. And I just recently read that college graduates are postponing marriage because they have too much student loan debt and can't afford a wedding. This is all utterly ridiculous. Seriously, if marriage was truly about love and commitment, it would not start with a 3-ring circus.

Gift Registries. So, getting hitched means that people are now entitled to the fine china and fancy cutlery? Marriage means that people are supposed to help the newlyweds establish their new home? Some people think that since they're shelling out for a wedding, a gift is like the admission fee to their circus. They're like "hey, I'm buying you dinner; help me upgrade my kitchenware and give me new towels." Hey, weddings are a choice and so is the budget. It's not like I show up to a wedding, request a five-course meal, flowers that match the tablecloths, or a six-tier wedding cake.

Diamonds. When some people see diamond rings, they see love and commitment, but all I see are sketchy, unethical mining practices and a waste of resources (2 months salary...come on, isn't that better spent on something else? Anything else?). Engagement rings are more than a pretty piece of jewelry. They signify ownership and let the world know that a woman is "taken." (ever notice how men don't wear engagement rings?) The size of the rock is also associated with the man's ability to take care of his betrothed and provide for her.

Outdated Patriarchal Practices. This includes, but is not limited to, white wedding dresses, fathers walking their daughters down the aisle, when women take their husband's name, and men who ask fathers for permission to marry their daughters. These practices aren't romantic or sentimental; they're demeaning to women.

Bridezillas. Sometimes, I cannot resist tuning in to the eponymous show on the Women's Entertainment network. This show is like the culmination of the list of things that truly make a mockery of marriage. It chronicles Bridezillas as they plan and execute their wedding. The cameras follow these divas and everything they do to make their wedding day, this one day, simply perfect. It reinforces the notion that marriage is about the wedding and that it is the bride's day, not about the bride AND groom. The television show holds no bars- the bridezillas verbally abuse and manipulate their soon-to-be-husbands, and the cameras catch every temper tantrum and lots of tears and insults.

Well look at that. Seems like heteros engage in many practices that make a mockery of marriage. Apparently, gay people aren't the only ones that can make a mockery of marriage. Heteros have been doing it all along and have done quite a nice job.

dear chris brown

Dear Chris Brown,
So I see that you decided to plead guilty for assaulting your ex-girlfriend, Rihanna. Instead of jail time, you get community service and a domestic violence prevention class. Of course, some wonder if justice was really served and if your celebrity status let you off the hook. The way I see it, most men are let off the hook; instead, it was your celebrity status that got you caught. So yes, justice was served.

You see, lots of women are assaulted, beaten, hit, strangled, slapped, and raped by men who purport to love them. They get caught in vicious cycles of violence and reconciliation because they have nowhere to go, no money, and/or children who depend upon their father's paycheck for survival. And, women rarely press charges, often because they are constrained by social and economic pressures and because they fear that they will not be taken seriously. They have good reason to believe this, as society is skeptical of a woman's accusation of rape and violence, often holding them accountable and responsible for her actions. Now, had Rihanna been financially dependent upon you or if you had children together, it's likely that you wouldn't be in this predicament.

Of course, right now you're probably wondering what this is going to do for your career, and perhaps pleading guilty is your strategy to minimize damage to it. As I understand it, you were quite a rising star in the music business and in the movies. I did enjoy your performance in 'This Christmas.' Well, I'm certain that soon, this will all be old news and you'll stage a comeback. I'm sure you'll follow in the footsteps of lots of men who are able to put allegations of violence, harassment, and assault against women behind them and attain high status positions like basketball stars (Kobe Bryant), politicians (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Gibbons, Bill Clinton), movie directors (Roman Polanski), and Supreme Court Justices (Clarence Thomas). Like your predecessors, fans will be looking up to you in no time.

Yes, yes, it's too bad you went and assaulted Rihanna, someone who decided to fight back and had the resources to do so. But don't worry, you'll be selling albums, winning awards, and starring in movies soon. Just you wait.

trust women

And now, some words on the death of Dr. George Tiller:

Dr. Tiller was one of the last remaining doctors to perform late-term abortions. Not partial-birth abortions, but late-term abortions. I make the distinction because partial-birth abortion is not a medical term; rather, it was a term coined by the anti-choice movement to shore up opposition to a rarely used medical procedure. You may also notice that I have chosen to call this the anti-choice movement, not the pro-life movement. I do this because those who are against abortion are not pro-life; rather, they are pro-birth and anti-choice.

Dr. Tiller was gunned down and shot Sunday, May 31st. As I said, he was one of the few doctors who performed late-term abortions. Some people see him as a murderer and his death as just a hazard of the job. I see someone as brave and courageous. He trusted women to make the best choices for their lives and for their bodies. Now, some people have this image of women who choose abortion as careless, reckless, and someone who doesn't take the decision seriously. This might be true in a few cases, but it's not the norm. And some people have this view that women who seek out late-term abortions are aborting perfectly healthy, viable babies. This definitely is not the case. Dr. Tiller stood as many women's last hope, and they sought him out when their health was in danger, when the fetus was deformed, or when their baby was certain to be stillborn. This is when women seek out late-term abortions; they don't do it just because they've suddenly changed their mind late in their pregnancy.

Another doctor who performs late-term abortions in Colorado was interviewed following Tiller's death. Dr. Hern discusses the harassment and the dangers of his job, and he also talks about the thinning ranks of abortion providers. Those who are oppposed to choice may see this as a good thing; after all, without abortion doctors, babies live, right?

The thing is, even if abortion is illegal and even if there are no abortion providers, women will continue to have abortions. See, in the past, abortion was hardly the contentious political issue that it is today. Instead, abortion was just part of the reproductive spectrum of women's lives. It was quite common, and lots of women did it because it was really the only way that they could control their fertility. Banning the procedure won't really stop abortions. It just means that wealthy women will be able to fly to whichever state or country still performs abortions, and poor women will resort to the back alleys and dangerous, self-induced methods. And perhaps some people think that this is just the price that women have to pay for having sex, but why do we let men off the hook? After all, women don't just impregnate themselves, yet we hold only women accountable for their sexual behavior.

I have done research on abortion rates in the United States, and I wonder if anti-choice activist efforts are displaced. After all, those who are vehemently opposed to abortion share a political party platform with those who are vehemently opposed to any sort of public assistance and social support. Commonly, those who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to public assistance. See why I call it anti-choice and pro-birth instead of pro-life? Consider this: Sweden, a country that provides extensive public assistance in the form of paid maternity and paternity leave as well as government funded day care, has one of the lowest abortion rates in industrialized nations.

A few weeks ago, I came across an article reporting that in this time of financial distress, business at women's clinics are on the rise. Seems that in this poor economy, women are struggling to make difficult reproductive decisions and do not have the means to raise a child. While in the past they might choose to have a baby, this time they choose to terminate a pregnancy. Some may think that if women don't want a baby, they just shouldn't have sex. Yet, we don't hold men accountable for their sexual behavior. Instead, men are socialized to want to have sex and lots of it. It sure complicates things considering that we also socialize women and men to be heterosexual. You can see the dilemma, right?

And so, here's what I say: Trust Women. In the words of Dr. Tiller, trust women to make the appropriate choices for their bodies and for their lives. We hold women responsible for abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, child care, and they are overwhelmingly the primary caregivers. It's a lot of responsiblity. We need to trust women to do what it right for them.

race, gender, and the Supreme Court

Last week, President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. When asked what he is looking for in a Supreme Court Justice, Obama said that empathy and compassion are among the desirable qualities. He wanted someone who could relate to the average person and understand the lives of ordinary individuals. Sotomayor was raised by a single mother in the Bronx (her father died when she was 9), and she went on to attend Princeton and Yale before making her way to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If confirmed, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic (or second, depending on whether or not you count Cardozo's Portguese descent as Hispanic) and third woman to serve on the high court.

There are many different points of view regarding the role of judges and their decision making, and the terms judicial activism and judicial restraint get tossed around quite freely. However, judges are inherently political. In judicial decision making, there is no way around it and we are fooling ourselves if we truly believe that judges can be neutral arbiters.

Some have wondered what role race and gender have on Sotomayor's rulings and if they matter for the Supreme Court, including the Dean of the UCI Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky. Sotomayor herself has mentioned that her race and gender have shaped her experiences and views, and this statement is under attack by conservatives. Some have even gone so far as to brand her a racist, and wonder if she is committed to justice for all or justice for a few. Others argue that though Sotomayor is passionate about minority rights, it does not come out in her judicial rulings.

If Sotomayor's experience as a woman of color raised in a working class family shapes her views and her judicial rulings, then so be it. After all, has anyone stopped for a moment to consider that our political institutions, laws, judicial decisions, and public policies have been shaped by the experiences and views of rich white men? And that these institutions and laws operate in a way that simply allows this dominant class to maintain their political and economic power? This has gone relatively unquestioned in our society.

So now, rich white men get a little nervous and fear that the tables will be turned. They fear that Sotomayor's experiences as a woman of color will somehow disadvantage them, and suddenly this is unfair.

the 'what about me?' syndrome

A couple weeks ago, I read an an editorial in the LA Times about population growth, fertility, and the empowerment of women. (I would post a link, but since I forgot the title and author, I can't find it online) Basically, the argument is that we should empower women through education, resources, and fertility control. The planet is unsustainable as long as population rates continue to grow, so empowering women is good for society as a whole and critical to gender equality.

Last weekend, the letters to the editor rolled in. Most agreed with the author, but one man argued that empowering everyone, not just women, is critical to society. Fine, I get it. He thinks it's unfair to focus solely upon women. It's unequal. What about the men, right?

I study violence against women, particularly rape. Sometimes, people like to remind me that men also get raped, and that violence should be a human rights issue, not a 'woman's issue.' Fine. It seems unfair to focus on women. What about the men, right?

I call this whining the 'what about me?' syndrome. When one disadvantaged group receives more attention, the dominant group likes to point out that there are exceptions and that special treatment just isn't fair. Yes, there are exceptions. Yet, when there are systematic patterns in society, we cannot deny that special treatment and focused attention may be necessary to mitigate inequalities. Globally, women are subordinate to men. A disproportionate number of political leaders are men. Women earn less than men, and more women are at the bottom of the socioeconomic hierarchy than men; this is so pervasive that we even have a term for this: the feminization of poverty. A disproportionate number of victims of rape and domestic violence are women. In the quest for equality, we need to address the inequalities and differences that exist between women and men.

Let me illustrate my point with an analogy. We know that the risk for heart disease is greater among those who are overweight, lead sedentary lifestyles, and have poor eating habits. Do people who exercise on a regular basis and forgo double cheeseburgers also get heart disease? Absolutely, but we know that this is rather infrequent. Yet, if I suggested to you that we just ignore the evidence that tells us that exercise, a healthy weight, and a sensible diet are important to stave off heart disease, you would think that I'm being ridiculous. If I said that doctors should not focus on discussing the risks of heart disease with their overweight and sedentary patients because sometimes healthy people get heart disease too, you would think I'm being ridiculous. See where I'm going with this?

I do not deny that there are exceptions to the rules, but I'm tired of the 'what about me?' syndrome. It reduces women's experiences of subordination and oppression to a single, individual occurrence and prevents us from seeing that these are rooted in systematic societal practices. It prevents us from seeing that there is a larger problem in society that needs to be tackled. If we want to make things equal, we need to acknowledge our differences and inequalities, and sometimes it will be necessary to single people out and focus our attention on particular groups.

generic pronouns

I am TAing Sociology of Gender this quarter, and last week we learned about the generic use of pronouns. Typically, we default to the masculine version of a pronoun when we speak. For example, let's say that you saw a dog and you didn't know its gender. You would probably say, "he's a cute dog." Or let's say that you found someone's lost pen. You would probably say, "did someone lose his pen?" Or let's say you're driving down the road and someone forgets to use his/her indicator. You would probably think to yourself, "he forgot to use his signal light." You get the idea. This is how masculinity becomes the norm in our society. We use masculine pronouns without even thinking about it. Sometimes we try to get around gender prounouns by saying "they," but unless we are talking about a plural form, using "they" is just bad grammar.

Usually we default to use the masculine version of a pronoun, except when it comes to objects like cars. Or ships or boats. Or babies. Then, we use the feminine pronoun. "she runs really nice" or "she's a great car" or "she's got a few more miles left on her" So, when we are referring to an object to be used or controlled, or humans in a dependent and helpless position, we default to the feminine pronoun. Just an observation.

I am in the middle of purchasing a car right now, and I watched Star Trek over the weekend. The guy who showed me a car referred to it as a "she" and the USS Enterprise was also referred to as "she" in the movie.

a feminist analysis of management

I saw the movie 'Management' the other night, starring Jennifer Aniston and Steve Zahn. If you have any intention to see this movie, then you should stop reading this blog post right now, as I'm going to walk you through the movie and spoil the ending for you.

Mike (played by Steve Zahn) is a socially stunted, chain smoking, overgrown kid with no direction in his life. He works the night shift at a hotel owned by his parents and lives in a corner hotel room. Sue (played by Jennifer Aniston) is an uptight, anal retentive woman who sells corporate art and tries to make the world a better place by recycling and passing out Burger King coupons to homeless people. Mike and Sue's paths cross when Sue's business trip takes her to Arizona, where she stays at the hotel where Mike is employed.

Mike awkwardly and painfully tries to hit on Sue by bringing her complimentary bottles of bad wine. On the night of his second attempt, Sue allows him to touch her ass for what seemed like a prolonged and awkward length of time. Apparently, this is a consolation prize. The next day, Sue checks out of the hotel, but she doesn't leave without first having a quickie in the laundry room with Mike.

Mike then thinks that he is in love with Sue. Here's the basic story line: Mike buys a one way ticket to Maryland to woo Sue. This doesn't work, so he returns home. Sue later visits the hotel, and she and Mike have a fling and she meets his dying mother. Then Mike finds out that Sue has gone back to her boyfriend to live in Washington. Of course, Mike then goes to Washington to find Sue and literally parachutes into her swimming pool. Sue tells Mike that they can't be together because she is pregnant, and she needs someone who can provide for her, and apparently her ex-punk, yogurt entrepreneur douchebag boyfriend is just the guy who can do this.

Obviously, I did not like this movie. From a feminist perspective, it was absolutely awful. So, Mike can't take no for an answer and then he basically stalks Sue. And, apparently, this is supposed to be all sweet and romantic. Mike eventually grows on Sue and she starts to like him back, giving viewers the idea that stalking is okay and that love is possible if you are annoying, persistent, and lack respect for a woman's personal space. It completely diminishes the seriousness of stalking, and sends the message that women enjoy this voyeuristic and intrusive behavior. Oh, and if men try hard enough, women will give in and let you touch their ass- or more.

Next, this movie upholds the expectation that women must be kind, submissive, and amenable to men. Sue is a woman, so she is supposed to be polite and nice. Even though she is clearly annoyed with Mike's advances, she still gives him a chance and of course, in the end, she starts to like him too. Sue just puts up with Mike's unacceptable behavior instead of sternly telling him to leave her alone. (yes, she tries to do this, but not very hard) So, this movie perpetuates the idea that no doesn't really mean no and that women secretly want aggressive and disrespectful men.

Then, this movie sends a negative message about women. Apparently, if a woman is ambitious and wants to make the world a better place, she is an uptight bitch in need of an immature man-child to loosen her up and show her how to have fun.

Finally, this movie upholds gender roles- men are supposed to be the providers, and women need a man to take care of them. Sue marries the douchebag yogurt guy because he can financially support her and their baby. Only when Mike gets his shit together and has a life plan does Sue finally decide to be with him.

I found it more difficult than usual to just sit back and enjoy this movie. Yes, I watch lots of superficial movies, many which negatively portray women. I mean, hello, I did just watch Bride Wars the other day, and I liked it. Yet, as I was watching Management, I could not help being angry and annoyed.

stand by your man?

Now, I don't have children, but I'm pretty sure that parents teach their kids that hitting, biting, choking, etc is unacceptable in all circumstances. Maybe parents teach their kids to fight back, but they don't teach their kids to start a fistfight or that violence is ever an appropriate remedy. So tell me, why is it that society treats domestic violence in an altogether different manner? Why is it that, in cases of domestic violence, we justify it and think that somehow a woman deserves to be hit, beat, shoved, choked, slapped, etc? Why do we justify these behaviors with the idea that a woman got what she deserved or that she must have provoked it? Why do we place a degree of responsibility, shame, and guilt upon the woman?

Last week, I read an article in which teenage girls were in disbelief over allegations of Chris Brown's physical abuse towards his girlfriend, Rihanna. They believe that Rihanna should also be held responsible for domestic violence and that it was her fault. I am disgusted by this attitude.

We have to believe that women do something to incite this violence because otherwise it means that any woman is a potential victim and any man is a potential perpetrator. Even pop singers and teen idols. If we can place a degree of responsibility and blame upon the victim, then women can relax, believing that they would never do something to provoke violence. We can tell ourselves that it won't happen to us and that we are immune by convincing ourselves that domestic violence is a result of some individual fault rather than a systematic, patriarchal practices and beliefs that women are subordinate to men.

in the news

It has been a long time since my last post, but trust me, I have good reasons. We are nearing the end of quarter (week 10 is next week), and I've been busy with classes and reading. I am working on another draft of my qualifying paper, and I have been reading a lot about rape and high profile rape cases.

This week in my discussion section, we applied the concepts and court cases about the commerce clause, interstate commerce, and the 10th amendment to a hypothetical case involving the legalization and regulation of marijuana. The inspiration for this discussion came from Reefer tax madness, which discussed the introduction of legislation in the California State Assembly to regulate and tax marijuana.

The California State Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Prop 8 this past Thursday. There were rallies in Sacramento, and there is a looming debate over what happens to existing gay marriages. Do they get to remain married, or must they dissolve their marriages?

Inspired to act because of the octomom controversy, Georgia and Missouri have introduced legislation to regulate the fertility industry. I don't condone multiple births or reproductive technology, but this legislation is yet another way to regulate women's fertility. The medical community (as well as the government) has historically practiced the regulation of women's fertility and reproductive health. Until the 19th century, abortion was a common practice (women either self aborted or sought the help of midwives) and it was llegalized when medical doctors pushed for its illegalization. The reason they did this was because they wanted to put the midwives out of business. If a woman wanted an abortion, she had to consult a team of medical doctors who would assess her and decide if she should be granted one. Other examples in which the medical community weighs in on women's health: breastfeeding, childbirth, and now reproductive technology and multiple births. While there is a lot of controversy surrounding the octomom (she's single, unemployed outside the home, receives public assistance), something that hasn't been mentioned is her race. Are we upset that a woman of color is taking advantage of reproductive technology to pass along her DNA? After all, it seems that infertility is a tragedy only when it happens to white women.

R & B singer Chris Brown was in court over assault and criminal charges against his girlfriend, singer Rihanna. And, rumor has it that she's taking him back. Seriously? Seriously. WTF? Yes, people make mistakes, but hitting, biting, choking, etc (and any other sort of abuse) is never right. What message does this send to young girls that look up to Rihanna? Seriously, where is her self respect?

Sometimes, I miss living in the dorms at the University of Minnesota and eating in the cafeteria. Actually, I really don't, but I miss the cereal selection at Centennial Hall. I could eat Golden Grahams one day and Cap'n Crunch the next. It was great. Anyway, I was thinking about all of this when I was struck by a craving for Fruity Pebbles. I bought a box yesterday, and I hope I can eat them in a timely manner so they don't go stale.

the trailblazers

Okay, so I have a really funny story for you. (Maybe I shouldn't preface a blog post with that statement, in case you don't think it's funny. Oh well.) So, if you type in the url for my blog, but replace the 'c' with a 'k' (so it's khris), you get this blog with a really funny title called "The I Wasn't Born so Much as I Fell Out Journal." My friend and I figured this out tonight when I told her my blog address and then she got momentarily confused as to how I spell my name. (I understand the confusion. Some people spell my name with a 'c,' even my relatives, which is why I sometimes get mail addressed to Chris.) Are you amused? Good story, Kris.

All right, here's a serious story now. So I'm going to share a practice that has recently become apparent to me. It's something that I've always done since I've started grad school, but I wasn't consciously aware of it until last week. Whenever I meet women in academia who came before me (this is my nice way of saying "women who are of previous academic generations"), I silently thank them for blazing a trail and making grad school easier for me. I'm a female, I study gender, and I am aware of gender discrimination and the hurdles that these women must have had to overcome, both in academia and just in life. I've been reading a lot about the feminist movement in the 1970s, and I think a lot about how these activists fought the battles to make things better for me. So, I think about women in academia the same way; I'm glad that they have carved a path for me and my female peers. (sure, not everything is completely perfect and equal in the 21st century, but my uh, race and gender incidents, have been few and far between.)

Anyway, I have no idea what grad school was like for the previous generations of women (and sometimes I wonder if I would have been tough enough to survive it), but sometimes I have rough days. And I feel very fortunate that my days don't include gender discrimination, on top of all the other stuff I have to do. I'm grateful that I don't worry that I'm not being taken seriously because I'm a woman, or that my adviser or the department invests more time and resources in the male students than me, or that my students think I don't know anything because I'm a woman, or that I may not get a job because I'm a woman. I imagine that the list could go on and on. These things never cross my mind, and I am convinced that I have the women who came before me to thank.

Like I said, I knew that I always had this silent appreciation for women in academia. I think about it when I'm taking a class taught by a female professor, when I meet other women at conferences, and I thought about it when I went to this business meeting last year for the Midwest Political Science Association Women's Caucus (I think that's what it's called, but I'm not going to look it up right now). I became fully aware of this habit last week, when one of the speakers for the CSD dinner was this super accomplished political scientist who is also an African American woman. I was pretty excited to meet her, not only because she researches race and gender politics, but also because she is a woman of color. I don't think about the fact that I'm Asian a whole lot, but I am aware that there are few women of color in academia (but it's getting better- hey, I'm a glass half full kind of girl). So, it was pretty cool to meet this professor, and I remember silently thanking her for blazing a trail for people like me.

And speaking of trailblazers, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery for pancreatic cancer. I hope she's okay. I don't want her to retire. Prior to being on the SC, Ginsburg founded the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU, and she has always fought hard for women's rights. She just might be my favorite SC Justice, but I just can't decide between her and Justice Harry Blackmun. (Also, I suppose that picking a favorite isn't an entirely fair process, considering I haven't reviewed the careers of all 110 justices.) Of course, nobody really cares if I have a favorite justice, except for me.

In the past year, I have noticed that I am uncomfortable talking about anything serious. Thus, I feel the need to bookend this blog post with something random and amusing. I watched the new episode of Grey's Anatomy last night. I think that if there were a television character most like me, Dr. Christina Yang would be it. I don't think that I'm as tough and badass as her, but I can see a resemblance. However, she has begun to lose her edge since starting this quasi "are-they-or-aren't-they?" relationship with Dr. Owen Hunt. Boo. I expected more from her, but she's still probably my all time favorite television character.