Lingual Tremors

Better Than Nothing? Think "Sexual Rosary..."

Holy sexual rosary!  Okay, here's cultural complexity at its best.   What do you do if you can't take birth control pills, have religious objections to medical birth control, or don't have access to advanced birth control like pills or shots, or even condoms?  UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, is supporting a program in West Africa that distributes "Cycle Beads," a visual way to keep track of fertile days in the menstrual cycle.

The deluxe beads come in aqua, mauve and copper.  The regular ones are brown and white.  You count the beads to keep track of your cycle.  Of course you recognize this as the rhythm method (and feminists everywhere scream danger! danger!).  However, it's been updated by researchers at Georgetown University's Institute for Reproductive Health.  (I will remind you that Georgetown is a Catholic, Jesuit institution, so their institute for reproductive health focuses on research that supports Catholic doctrine).

The article from UNFPA describes the program in Senegal and points to some of the advantages and disadvantages in using cycle beads (for example, a husband's willingness to cooperate).

Now, here's the thing:  on the one hand, I'd argue for full access to a range of birth control and family planning choices.   On the other hand, when contraception choices are limited, perhaps cycle beads are better than nothing.  In fact, I think they are better than nothing.  UNFPA is clearly invested in family planning and helping women to make choices about a healthy family size and about their own lives and energy as mothers.  So, even if a woman becomes pregnant while using the cycle beads, she is already more aware of the concept of family planning, which could then lead to social and political reform for greater choices.

However, the idea of cycle beads is also controversial and a stop gap measure, rather than a true move towards sexual equality.  And, of course, it doesn't sufficiently address the rampant HIV infection rates in Sub-Saharan Africa.  Senegal, where the article is focused, is a Muslim country with a low rate of HIV infection.  Senegal is a very interesting study in a social, cultural, political, and religious response to HIV and AIDS.  Muslim and Christian leaders have been incredibly proactive in spreading accurate information about HIV/AIDS prevention.  The government has worked hard to raise awareness, to monitor official prostitutes, and to provide medication and treatment to those who have HIV.  Youth peer educators walk the streets handing out information and condoms.  It's really quite a picture of progress.  However, that's not necessarily a full picture.  In 2006, in Dakar, rates of HIV infection among sex workers were at almost 21% and in Ziguinchor at almost 30%.  One needs only to look at the history of the spread of HIV infection to know that HIV will travel from the sex workers to the husbands to the wives... 

And, since the cycle beads depend on a husband's cooperation anyway, then perhaps condoms would be the best choice, especially given the fact that the government supports the use of them and they are accessible.
 

The Big Fat Hillary Post You've Been Asking For: I'm Not Ready To Make Nice

I get it.  You want to know what I think about Hillary Clinton conceding the Democratic party's nomination for president to Barack Obama.  You can stop with the "whaddaya think" e-mails already.  Here goes.  I'm angry. I'm not ready to make nice.  And I'll vote for whomever I damn well please.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here is the picture from today's concession speech:

Hillary is smart.  Hillary is tough.  And, Hillary is an inspiration to the generations who follow in her footsteps.  For those of you who cross country ski, you know that breaking a trail for those who follow you is a tough role to have on a trip.  Hillary has created a fine trail for the rest of us to follow.

But as we watched her do so, her struggles mirrored our own struggles.  The sexism she confronted was our own battle for equality, our own battle to be taken seriously, our own battle to break through all of the glass ceilings that lie in our way, our own battle to demand a government that represents us, or own battle to feel truly represented. 

How can you truly say thank you to Hillary for that? 

In her concession speech yesterday, Clinton said:

I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of.  I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter's future and a mother who wants to leave all children brighter tomorrows. To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and their mothers. 

The 2008 contest for the Democratic nomination was eye-opening at best, and a horrific testament to our current misogyny as a nation at its worst.  On one level, I feel like I just watched a woman get bitch-slapped by the world for 16 months.  The great "Hillary smack down" took the form of:  the sexist husbandry of the media, the hypocrisy of the rhetoric of "equality" and "change," the farce of a liberal community that fought dirty on-line battles, and the rampant verbal diarrhea that exposed a national fabric built on resentment of women and the gains women have made in the twentieth century.

Moreover, the nomination revealed a deeply fractured feminist community split by race, age, political affiliation, class, sexuality, and relationship to motherhood.  We are not a sisterhood united for a better world.  We are a bitchy sorority willing to sacrifice one of our own to the gods of popular opinion.

And all of the "wow, Hillary's just swell!"  and "Didn't she run a great campaign" news items of the past week aren't going to assuage my anger any time soon.  It's a disingenuous attempt to pander to the angry feminist vote.  Those bloggers and news commentators and fellow candidates who now seek to compliment Hillary on a campaign well run after trashing her in one of the dirtiest election seasons ever can, in my humble opinion, take a long walk off a short cliff, leaping to their own deaths like the bunch of lemmings they are.

I think it's going to take some time to digest the election, but here are some preliminary thoughts:

Whither Goes Roe...New York Need Not Follow

Our good friends, the ivied nonet of justice, in their April 2007 decision to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, paved the way for an assault on reproductive health.  Under the Bush administration, we have seen unprecedented, in a post Roe world, bans and restrictions on abortion. 

New York's Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection Act, introduced by Governor Spitzer, would guarantee New York's pro-choice stance, regardless of federal restrictions.

Why do we need such legislation?  NARAL New York's fact sheet explains:

"In 1970, New York introduced one of the first laws in the United States decriminalizing abortion. New York modified its penal code and made it legal for doctors to perform abortions.

The law was visionary then, but today it is outdated and confusing. Current law does not contain the foundations upon which Roe was decided, including the fundamental right of women to make private medical decisions, nor does it take into account how abortion care is now provided. Much has changed since the 1970’s, and New York needs an up-to-date law that protects a woman’s fundamental right to abortion. 

The Reproductive Health and Privacy Protection will codify New York’s longstanding support of reproductive freedom, while ensuring that New York State is prepared if the right to choose is threatened by a weakening of Roe or further federal encroachments."

This legislation is critical to ensure continued access to reproductive medicine for New York's women.  This legislation will also ensure that New York would remain a safe haven for women. 

How can you help?
1.  Inform yourself about the act and the protections it would provide.
2.  Talk about it with your friends, family, colleagues.
3.  Volunteer to help NARAL
4.  Give money to NARAL New York
For more information on actions you can take, click here.

Here's a new video about the importance of the act:

Morning Misogyny Watch

Dear "Sweeties,"

I seriously don't think I have the energy to really engage with this week's news about the campaign.  From "sweetie" to Edwards' endorsement to the Democratic Party's STFU message to women, I feel utterly disenfranchised.  Basically, those of us who voted for Clinton (what the hell--it's still almost a 50/50 split, but Obama has "won"?) just don't "count." 

Check out this morning's misogyny round up.

Lambert has a nice overview of recent analyses of sexism in the campaign.
Egalia has a piece called "Little Sweeties Threaten to Boycott Obama".
Riverdaughter has a call to action.
And, yes, sweetie.  Not once (wait for it at 32 seconds).  But at least twice.
Thank you, Scott Ross, for this discussion of why "sweetie" is a problem.
And, of course, Melissa's "Hillary Sexism Watch Part Ninety-Goddamn-Two"

P.S.  Everyone is quoting this:

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars.
-- Marie Cocco, WaPo

While I appreciate Cocco's sentiments (and the whole article is quite good, especially for WaPo), I want to say, "really? Because you think the silence and the sexism are going to get BETTER?"  I don't.  I think we're doomed to continue on the path of rampant misogyny in this country.  Sigh. 

Idiot of the Week: Happy Mother's Day: You're Fat & Ugly

The girl asks: "Why are you going to look different?"

Mom responds: "Not just different, my dear — prettier!"

Ah, folks.  We just haven't had enough idiots of the week lately.  Due out just in time for mother's day:  the new children's book My Beautiful Mommy, by plastic surgeon Dr. Michael Salzhauer, which explains plastic surgery to children ages 4-7 after their mothers have a "mommy make-over" to "fix" their bodies after childbirth.  Because having the child(ren) isn't enough:   now you have to fix your ugly body before your husband and your kids find you offensive.  What's next?  Mother's Day gift certificates for plastic surgery?  Ugh.  Just.  Don't.  Answer.  That.  I don't want to know.

I particularly like the illustration of mommy's new, "magic" body, with all of the sparkles.  Wow!  She's pretty!

• The full article from AP
• The Shape of a Mother--photographs from mothers before & after birth, trying to deconstruct the idea of a "perfect body" (awesome project!!!)
• Body Image Blues
• Real Beauty:  Mothers Against Photoshop
• Shame and Body Image
• Love Your Body Campaign
• No Body is Perfect
• Deeeeeply Disturbing (warning:  may induce vomiting)
• The Baby Bump Project
• Why Do People Love to Be Insensitive and Tactless to Mothers?
• Is the "Mom" Job Really Necessary?  (via NYT)

And, if you're not offended enough, here are just a few "mommy makeover" sites!  Yay! 

• Featuring the "Big Three":  Boobs, Abdomen and Lipo!  Whee!
• Marina Plastic Surgery Associates  (No joke:  their slogan is "Embrace the Feeling of Being a Mother)
• Mommy Makeover: New Jersey Moms Turn Back Time

 

I am not woman enough.

To Do:

1.  Join Jenny Craig.
2.  Cut & Color Hair.
3.  Schedule Botox session and/or facelift
4.  Join New York Sports Club
5.  Get a personal shopper.
6.  Develop an obsession with Jimmy Choos and other fashionable shoes
7.  Buy make-up
8.  Make an appointment for a mani/pedi french manicure (fake nails?)
9.  Throw out all food in the house
10.  Schedule elective genitoplasty.

(Okay, who am I kidding?  This probably isn't even half of the list....for a "real" woman!)

Did you do you homework last night?  Did you read read Sarah Hepola's hilarious "Is Your Vagina Magic?"   Now seriously people:  maybe I just need to watch more porn, but I had no idea that there was an ideal vagina.  But of course, in our image-obsessed society, even our vaginas are fat.  Let me say that again:  our vaginas are fat.

"More and more women are said to be troubled by the shape, size or proportions of their vulvas", wrote Lih Mei Liao and Sarah Creighton from London's UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health.

Elective genitoplasty.  Because shooting botulism into your face and using a Hoover to suck fat off your thighs just isn't good enough.  And you wonder why Hillary is having trouble in the polls?   and liposuction aren't enough. 

Read on, vaginaphobes:

Does this make my labia look fat?
Designer Vaginas are Hot
British Medical Journal Blasts Designer Vagina Craze
Reproductive Rights Law Prof's Blog

Eliot's Headless Whores: The American Male Politician and Remedial Feminism

Sigh.  Call him the idiot of the week:  Eliot Spitzer.

Of course we've all spent a lot of time this week thinking about Eliot Spitzer's amazing acts of hubris;  perhaps the temporary definition of "hypocrisy" in Wikipedia might include a picture of Governor Spitzer as the word embodied?

In a few short days, he and his wife went from this:
(photo via 02138 )

to this:
(photo via nj.com)

There's a lot of fodder for discussion in the Spitzer case:  the amazing rise and fall of a visionary leader; debates over the illegality of prostitution, here, here, here, here & here;  the mirth (and sadly bad frat boy ways) of the Wall Street boys (yes, I did knowingly link to the NY Post...); the ways in which the public reacted bizarrely to the news by attacking Spitzer's wife (More disgusting Dr. Laura coverage here;  see also Body Impolitic's response, and mine!); all of this and more will continue to be debated in the blogosphere over the coming weeks. 

For me, however, what stands out is the interminable stupidity and unconscious misogyny of the American male politician.  In education--and in our legislation of things like No Child Left Behind & standardized testing--our political, social, and cultural mores have determined that there are essential skills necessary for participation in society.  A well educated citizen is articulate in basic, shared knowledge like math, literature, writing, science, civics, and history (to name a few).  I'd like to suggest that the repeated incidents of public infidelity on the part of the American male politician argue for something even more basic:  mandatory courses in remedial feminism.  To truly move to a society where men and women are considered equal, gender equality needs to be a central tenant of social, political, cultural, and academic discourse. 

In an election cycle that explicitly condones sexism against a female candidate for president, in the midst of a legislative war over reproductive rights,  in the continuing ideological fight for access to birth control & abortion, in the hypocrisy of a culture that mandates motherhood but refuses to fund and legislate access to quality daycare and schools, just to name a few issues, is it any surprise that one of the leading liberal politicians is busted for participation in a prostitution ring?

That Mr. Spitzer went to a prostitute isn't shocking.  In some ways, the only thing newsworthy here is his own vulgar hypocrisy.  But, what really bothers me is this:  if Mr. Spitzer could buy--literally--into the notion that some women are commodities to be bought for his pleasure, how is it that he could represent and advocate for public policies that ensure the equality of men and women under the law?  In New York, Spitzer was a known proponent of progressive legislation for women's rights.  Amy Goodman has a great article about it here (and about how, as the news of Spitzer's infidelity was breaking, New York's women & teens were rallying for new legislation that Spitzer supported).   

What I'm trying to get at is this:  the very public picture of Mr. Spitzer and his wife, above, sends one message about equality in our society:  men and women working together to effect social and political change (of course, he as the legislator, she as the trusty "support" network).  Mr. Spitzer's political career was defined, in one arena, by a fierce passion for women's rights.  And below, a darker, more chilling picture of Mr. Spitzer's conscious? unconscious? opinion of women.  Call them Eliot's Headless Whores.

Here is what the Emperor's Club promised its clients (via Huffington Post--the EC Website has been taken off-line):

Emperors' Club vip is the most preferred international social introduction service for those accustomed to excellence. Introducing the most impressive models to leading gentleman of the world is our expertise. We specialize in introductions of: fashion models, pageant winners and exquisite students, graduates and women of successful careers (finance, art, media etc...) to gentlemen of exceptional standards. When seeking an evening date, a weekend travel companion, or a friend to accompany you during your next business / social function our models are perfect preference.

We act for a select group of educated, refined and successful international clients who give their best in all they do and who, in return, only wish to receive the best. Catering to clients who will not compromise in any area of their life...

Our meticulous standards of beauty, intelligence and charm ensure that you always encounter the quality you've come to expect in a woman, when with an Emperors' Club vip model. Each of our companions is a product of an exceptionally fine background and a success in her right. All rendezvous are individually crafted to suit the needs of your specific occasion. Note that each model has place in her schedule for a select number of appointments per month, so your date will be a special one for both of you.

Our goal is to make life more peaceful, balanced, beautiful and meaningful. We honor commitment to our clients as we covet long-term relationships of trust and mutual benefit. Experience for yourself a service of obvious distinction...

We are a visual culture--one which understands, interprets, and argues, based on images.  Images say everything.  So, how disturbing is it that each of these "companions," who boast "intelligence," "charm," and "success" is pictured headless?  Now, before you jump to the immediate argument--of course their faces are not depicted for legal reasons.  And yet:  they are headless.  They are not, say, shot from behind without faces shown.  They are not (with one exception) shot with their hair covering their faces.  They are, in fact, headless. 

They are rated, by diamonds.  They are body parts to be used for pleasure--breasts, legs, and torsos (oh yeah--and the implied vagina).  They are not "perfect preference," but headless whores.  Were Mr. Spitzer actually interested in "success" and "intelligence" and "charm" (not to mention support and the propagation of his legacy), why would he need to look further than his wife & partner?

So, in that headlessness is revealed a vast misogyny that views women as nothing more than the fuckable object--a 'ho with holes.  Here we have women to be used and discarded--not really that different than buying a box of tissues:  buy them, use them for your bodily fluids, and throw them away when you're done.

Here we have women as the ultimate act of capitalism:  an object to be bought & sold. 

Images via Wonkette:

 

Here's the thing:  if Mr. Spitzer were actually committed equality and a fierce advocate for equal rights, then he should have been repulsed by these images, a clearly disgusting portrayal of women as sex objects.  Let's face it:  we're a country fairly immune to rhetoric.  Despite the Emperor Club's discussions of "introductions" and "models" and "successful women," we all know the site is selling these women.  And Eliot Spitzer was buying--to the possible tune of $80,000.  For the moment, I'd like to belay the inevitable debate over what it means to work as a high-priced "companion" and whether or not the ability to set one's own price and working conditions is, in fact, an act of feminism, as some have argued.  That is a rich topic ripe for debate.  What I want to remain focused on here is Mr. Spitzer's remedial understanding of a woman as a headless, fuckable object.

So, the question is a philosophical one:  how can a politician truly understand and argue for gender equality when accepting the most primitive of social norms where women are concerned?  At least conservative religious leaders who would bar women from public office have their ideology aligned with their practice.  When you look at the incredible spate of male politicians engaging in illegal (or unwise) trysts, the hypocrisy points to the basic fact:  do they really believe that men and women are equal?  If not, how can they govern and legislate in a way that represents us all?  As a culture, I don't think we're truly ready to wrestle with the embedded sexism that lies deep within our cultural psyche--we can't even address & universally critique blatant acts of sexism.

Here's my final point:  none of this is news to feminists.  This is the basic stuff of feminism for years and years and years.  From conferences to websites to courses in college to  blog posts (see this great one on the male gaze at Feminism 101) to books like  Judith Butler's Gender Trouble, Susan Bordo's Unbearable Weight, Joan Jacobs Bromberg's The Body Project, and Janet Price's Feminist Theory and the Body, this is all the stuff of basic feminism.  And yet, despite all of this canonical & contemporary work, the basic message is still adrift in our culture.  Mr. Spitzer, champion of women's rights, father to three daughters 13, 15, & 17, husband to a Harvard lawyer and "partner" in his career, is revealed as a hypocrite in his own ideology.  Women as equals?  Good for the political sphere & rhetorical flourish.  Not so good for the bedroom.

**********

P.S.  On women politicians, sexual trysts, and equality:  I'm not saying that women politicians can't make the same mistake.  I'm not saying women might not commit an act of infidelity.  I'm just saying the temptation & the ideology aren't quite the same.  When was the last time you saw advertisements for a Headless Man Whore site?  I'm just saying...

LEAVE HER ALONE: On American's Bizarre Obsession with Sex Scandals

Like many New Yorkers, I was dismayed by the news that Eliot Spitzer has been caught in a scandal over high-priced prostitutes;  Spitzer is quite possibly the most intelligent, fiercest governor that New York state has ever had (seriously--he got a perfect score on his LSATs).  Granted, his administration had already run into trouble before Monday's announcement, but it would have been interesting to see how he met those challenges.  Now, however, all of his goals for change & reform have gone up in flames.  The tragic fact is that Spitzer no longer has political clout because he compromised his ethics and broke the law.  We can have a longer conversation about whether or not prostitution should be legal, about whether or not sex scandals should even be considered in the public sphere.  However, I have to say that at the moment, Spitzer's own widely public crusades against corruption--including exposing 2 prostitution rings--make his staying in office impossible. 

But, this post isn't about him.  It's about his wife, Silda Wall Spitzer.  Yesterday's news cycle was weirdly misogynist.  (I mean, when isn't it, but yesterday was really bizarre).  Locally, our public radio station's call-in show, "The Brian Lehrer Show" had a segment on why women appear in public with their husbands when the husbands have strayed.  The comments ranged from sane to truly crazy!  Two different list servs that I am on went ballistic in criticizing Wall Spitzer for "standing by her man" and "setting a bad example" to young women.

Here's a little excerpt for "flavor" from Upstream and Downstream:

She looks like an automaton, eyes vacant, and not nearly deep enough to contain the hurt. Women see it. Women feel it. And women think: no way would I stand beside the podium while my husband issued his apology. Why should I? Why should I act supportive when I feel nothing of the sort?

Ignoring a beloved's faults is one thing; standing by the man who just stuck a knife in your back is another.

How about this one from HubDub?

Also, as has become custom with these things, Silda Wall Spitzer fulfilled her duty as the State of New York's first lady by standing silently by her man and allowing herself to be dragged down in the public condemnation. This must have been particularly difficult for two reasons – firstly, to stand stoic and silent while her husband delivered a speech which barely acknowledged his wrongdoing, when the overwhelming, impulsive urge in such a situation would surely have been to give her husband a swift kick in the groin. Secondly, as an attractive woman with a Harvard law degree, the public criticism and humiliation directed at Wall Spitzer has been scathing and debasing. Women defiantly swear that they would never stay with a cheating partner, let alone publicly endorse him.

And this:  "Public Questions Spitzer's Wife's Support During Prostitute Scandal":

When Silda Wall Spitzer stood beside her husband in ashen-faced misery the other day as the governor made his brief apology in the prostitution scandal, she uttered not a word. Yet she launched a thousand conversations

"Why is she standing there?" many women wondered. "Should she be? Would I be?"

And for many, who've seen a long line of wronged political spouses do the same, from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Dina Matos McGreevey to Suzanne Craig, the immediate answer was a resounding, "Hell, no."

Here's my take:  leave Silda Wall Spitzer alone.  As if it isn't enough that she has to endure the private pain and public scrutiny of her husband's infidelity, the public is now going to judge her?  Choices that people make--to forgive or to walk away--from relationships are highly private and highly personal.  And, just because someone is an elected official or the spouse of an elected official, doesn't give the public any right to judge their relationship and the choices they make, including attending a press conference.  I think it's a weird sort of misogyny that makes people want to comment on situations like these because people become very invested in "the right choice", as if there's some Legoland prescription for building the perfect marriage.  All of the blog posts about "standing by her man" and reducing the very real pain of this situation to some cliched country song infuriates me.

Moreover, I think it speaks to a kind of subtle misogyny.  By judging her--and other political wives--for showing up at these kinds of press conferences, people are inadvertently (or sometimes, in the case of the always disgusting Dr. Laura) casting blame on the woman and her role in the marriage.  As if it's a public outing of her inability to be "the good wife."  What alarms me the most is number of women jumping on the bandwagon of bashing the wife.  As if our own romantic relationships are endangered just by this woman's decision to stand next to her husband.  Do you really think her pained face was some kind of tacit endorsement of her husband's behavior?  Her expression was one of the most silent condemnations I've ever seen.

As I said last summer with the Larry Craig "bathroom" affair--I actually have a hard time with people who want to rejoice in other people's pain.  I think there's a very real difference between attacking policies and decisions that people make about public life and their private lives.  Forget the separation of church & state.  Let's have a little separation of private and public life.  What Silda Wall Spitzer decides to do in her own life has no bearing on what we do in our private lives.  That's why the private part should remain private.

I think that many people were troubled by the obvious pain on Silda Wall Spitzer's face at the press conference.  Yeah.  It's uncomfortable to see people in pain.  Yeah.  She could have stayed home.  We don't know why she chose to be there, but she did.  She's a smart, well-educated lawyer.  If she didn't want to be there, she wouldn't have been.  While she and her daughters may be victims in her husband's allegedly "victimless crime", she isn't some pushover cookie cutter politician's Stepford wife.  She has already led interesting initiatives as First Lady, like greening the governor's mansion and hosting the "I Live New York" conference.  Calling her a "human prop" is insulting.

Maybe more of us should think about the fact that what we get everyday are weirdly smiling photos of our politicians while they announce regressive political measures and wars.  In our instantly beautiful society of chemicals and surgery and photoshop, we're unaccustomed to seeing people look like real people.

Silda Wall Spitzer is a real person with real emotions about the situation she faces.  Bottom line?  Leave her alone.  Want to post a funny/satirical/cynical blog post?  Choose your targets wisely and ethically.  Judge Eliot all you want--I may agree or disagree--but he should be the target of the outrage, not her. 

From the misogyny files:

Silda Spitzer, Human Prop
"I'm Keeping the House"
Dr. Laura:  It's the Wife's Fault!
Silda's Song
Why, Silda, why?
Here's My Token Feminist POV
NPRs "Classy" Spouses in Scandal Gallery
Hillary Answers Silda's 3 a.m. Call (Because it's funny to heap even more humiliation on these women)

About Silda Wall Spitzer's initiatives as First Lady of New York
Bio

Other Relevant Reading:

American Street on Spitzer/Resignation
ICKY!  Screen shots and "diamond ratings" for the "models" available from the Emperor's Club

The Compleat Presidency (not a typo...)

Regular readers of this blog know that I am having a hard time stomaching the Obama campaign--particularly when it comes to women's issues.  The Obama campaign has made Michelle Obama out to be the "anti-Hillary."  She's taking a break from her career, supporting her husband, and focusing on her children:  in short, every successful man's dream.  And, in wide contrast to Bill Clinton's first campaign when Hillary's first feminist utterings became the stuff that people still remember today--" I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life," Clinton said in 1992.

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama has taken a break from her career to help Obama on the campaign trail.  Without a doubt, Michelle Obama has had a forceful career and has a lot to say about balancing work and family concerns (it would seem, she has a lot in common with Clinton).  If you haven't done so, you should read about Michelle Obama's career.  In many ways, I find her a much more compelling figure than her husband.  She's well-educated, down-to-earth, and has held a high level career that means she's good at what she does.  Oh, yeah.  And she's a mom.  Yet none of this comes across in the media.  Instead, in articles like this, the focus is one sided--Michelle as mommy.  It's a theme that comes up over and over again.  One could imagine Michelle making those cookies, but the truth is that both she and Hillary are closer to "having it all" than most women in the United States.  So, why does Michelle repeatedly soften her image on the campaign trail?  Because it takes votes from Hillary. 

So, check out this fascinating article in today's Guardian on the "compleat" woman study, done in 1987 and comparing it today's woman and what it means to "have it all."  Why not do something totally crazy and elect Hillary and Michelle--together:  the "Compleat Presidency..."???

Roe's My Favorite Bitch. I Mean. Blog for Choice, 2008.

So, it's 35 years of Roe v. Wade today.  Here in the feminist blogosphere, we're all thinking about what voting pro-choice means.

And, let's face it.  Nothing brings out the feminist manifesta in me than Blog for Choice Day.  Nothing gets my cervix in a knot more than waking up to NPR's "homage" to Roe (i.e. the latest set of attacks against Roe).  So, grab a cuppa joe and settle in for a little classic LX ranting (yes, mom, this is a rated "R" post...).  'Cause hey:  if I can't say it here, where can I say it?

So, all day today, I've been lightly dreading this post.  Regular readers here at Chez Lingual know that I am, without question, a feminist, pro-choice blogger.  (Newbie visitors!  Welcome!  Regarding the previous sentence:  please see the categories of "Radical Uterus" and "Stepford Wife in Training" to your left for further evidence...)  But, how many more ways can I say it?  Oh, sure, I can lean lightly over to the bookshelf of feminist wisdom and quote everyone from Margaret Sanger to Kate Michelman, but at the end of the day:  who is really listening?  Do you really want me to quote Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale AGAIN?  AGAIN?  AGAIN?

And see, on the very surface of things, this is where I find Barack Obama attractive.  Aren't you sick of the continual clash of the left and the right?  Aren't you sick of FOX News vs. NPR vs. The New York Times vs. The National Review vs. Pacifica vs. NBC?  Wouldn't it be great if we could all get along?  Wouldn't it be great if Obama and McCain brought beer?  A really great beer with bottled beer taste in a can?  (Oh sorry--that's another post...)

But here's the thing:  abortion isn't like an eco-friendly Hummer (okay--we all know that an eco-friendly Hummer isn't really eco-friendly, but you get the point). 

Let me say that again.  Abortion isn't an eco-friendly Hummer. 

There's no real place to meet in the middle.  Taxes?  Maybe.  War?  Possibly.  Health care?  The Economy?  Sure!  We agree that those are serious, vote-worthy issues, even though we don't agree how to address the.  But abortion?  The two sides of the abortion wars are perpetually divided, a political schism the size of the San Andreas fault running through the very foundation of this country.  We can't just all get along.   

Over at Salon.com, Rebecca Traister writes in the introduction to her interviews with feminists on the importance of Roe:

I wish it were possible to raise a glass, give a birthday toast, and claim that Roe didn't look a day over 29, but alas, this is a bittersweet bash. A mere three and half decades after her birth, Roe shows her age: She's been weakened, knocked around, had big bites taken out of her.

Now, I take umbrage at the fact that 35 is old.  Those of us in our 30s know that we're just hitting our stride...  But here's the thing:  America is a cruel and perverted daddy ready to encourage us to show a little skin and then to beat us for having sex.  America is peering through the keyhole of our bedroom, enjoying what he sees, and getting ready to lecture us about it later.

America likes its little girls full of sexual promise.  Think about Jonbenet Ramsey's already sexual pout, hands on hips, full of intent.  Want a poster child for what's wrong with women's roles in the United States?  Look at the Britney Spears debacle of motherhood.  When she was in her naughty school girl uniform, showing just enough skin America drooled in front of the television.  While she was slithering around 3/4 naked on stage with a snake, America licked the screen.  When she graduated to leather, America jacked off in the corner.  And now that she's a mother?  An unfit mother?  She's bitch-slapped with every insult possible.

The fight over choice amounts to this:  America wants you to have sex.  No lap dances.  No titty fucks.  America wants you to have good, old fashioned, full penetration sex.  Lots of it.  And then America wants you to pay for it.  Literally.

It's all well and good that the conservative movement wants to talk about "pro-life" and saving babies.  But at the end of the day, is any compassionate conservatism actually motivated by some real sense of biblical justice?  I ask this, with all sincerity, who would Jesus bomb? 

So, here's my point:  sure, we can talk about patriarchy.  We can talk about women's rights over their own bodies.  We can talk about the woman's body as a public possession.  We can talk about when life begins.  We can talk politics.  We can talk religion.  We can talk philosophy.  Those are all valid points.  Those are all important points.  But, perhaps, we also need to talk about money.  Because really, aren't conservative arguments in the U.S. always about money?  Here's a tagline for you:  Ain't nobody nowhere making Enron-style money off of an abortion clinic.  Ain't no off shore bank accounts accruing "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" kinds of cash from the economics of abortions.

Here's the question:  why vote pro-choice?  For the same reasons that you vote for things like national health care plans or to end the war or to really fund education.  Because no one is going to give you those things.  We live in a capitalist country run by money.  And nothing talks money like a beautiful, bouncing baby.  MSNBC offers helpful tips on "Raising Your Quarter-Million Dollar Baby."  Here's a chilling quote:

For 2004, the newest data available, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that families making $70,200 a year or more will spend a whopping $269,520 to raise a child from birth through age 17. Higher-income families in urban areas in the West spend the most, $284,460.

Though not as steep, the figures for lower-income families are just as unsettling: $184,320 for families earning $41,700 to $70,200 and $134,370 for families making less than that. That breaks down to nearly $15,000 a year from birth to age 2 for families in the $65,800 -plus income bracket. As your child ages, he or she gets even more expensive, topping out at $15,810 from ages 15 to 17. This is no back-of-the-envelope guesstimate. The survey involves visits to, and interviews with, about 5,000 households, four times a year.

That's for 1 kid, to age 18.  Read:  no college.  It's in the conservative best interest to have middle-class families making as many babies as possible.  Think:  bigger houses, more bedrooms!  Health care premiums!  Diapers!  Formula!  Day Care!  Day Care!  Day Care!  Private School Vouchers!  And don't forget about the strollers!  (You will die if you don't buy the best buggy in town...).  Don't even get me started on student loans.  I could go on and on and on...

Now, I'm not actually saying you shouldn't have kids.  If you want kids, go for it.  Do it.  Be a good parent.  Be good parents.  Be intentional.  Be loving.  But, here's the thing:  your government wants you to have a kid only because it's good for the economy.  If we lived under a government that really cared about kids, then kids would have universal health care.  Kids would have great schools.  Parents would have good day care programs or wouldn't have to have two parents working just to scrape by.  Children's services would be functional and well-funded.  Parents would be supported. 

But here's my point:  we don't live in that world.  And in the same way that you can't really have an eco-friendly Hummer, you can't have a world where kids don't have health care, but you have to have a kid. 

When you vote, the issues are all connected.  And, at the end of the day?  It's the poor and the middle class, brandishing their swords against the rich.  We may talk a good game of democracy and hope and change.  But, no one is going to change the world for you.  You're going to have to get up, go to the voting booth, and do it with everyone else who believes what you believe. 

You're going to have to stand and fight because at the end of the day, it's not in America's best interest to let you make your own decisions.  It's much better to dupe you into thinking that, in post 9/11 Bush eloquence, that the single best thing you can do after a horrific terrorist attack literally stops the nation, you should shop.  Or have a baby.  Whatever.  Just keep that money flowing.

Why am I voting pro-choice?  Because I believe that America needs sexual rehab.  America needs a reality check.  I have to fight to make America about more than money.  I want to get America off the couch and into the soup kitchen.  I want to get America into a philosophy course.  An ethics course.  I want America to stop bombing things.  I want a truly changed America.  And for me, that's an America where every kid is a wanted kid.  That's an America where parents want to be parents.  I want an America that really cares about its kids.

You remember your high school self.  You might have had good SAT scores.  Maybe you were a National Merit Scholar.  Maybe you were average.  Maybe you were a band geek.  Maybe you were a prom queen. Maybe you dated the prom queen.  Whatever.  The point is:  we all had our mirror-obsessive moments of "am I cute enough?"  "Will they like me?"  But, that's the stuff of childhood.

The great thing about 30 is that we've all learned a lot.  Men, women.  We're smarter in our 30s than we were in our 20s, in our teens.

So, hey.  Let's rewrite Roe.  Let's make her sassy, with a touch of gray in her hair.  Let's make her old enough to say what's really on her mind.  Let's make Roe the proud mother of 2.  Let's make Roe bold and strong.  Let's make her a leader.  Let's make her a bitch.  Let's help Roe with a new motto:  "Let's fuck shit up."  Let's make Roe a Margaret Thatcher "winner takes all" kind of woman.  Let's take Roe all the way, baby.  Let's make Roe a grandma and great-grandma and great-great-grandma who loves to wear purple and escort women into clinics.  Let's vote Roe president.

Happy birthday Roe.  You're my favorite bitch in town.

Kisses and hugs,

Lingual X

Read on!

New Faces:

• The Curvature
• Anti-Choice is Anti-Awesome
• Canned Peaches
• Kittywampus
• Inspired Faith, Effective Action
• Stinky Lulu

The Feminist Faithful:

• Angry Black Bitch
• Feminist Law Profs

Aw, heck.  Just go read them all for yourself!  The WHOLE List of 2008 Blog for Choice bloggers...

And, check out Salon.com's special feature on 35 years...

And, of course, a trip down memory lane:
My 2006 Blog for Choice Post
My 2007 Blog for Choice Post

Waitress: "Diabetic Coma Pie"

**Spoiler Alert**

Think:  Como Agua Para Chocolate meets The Nanny.  I just got around to seeing the well-reviewed film, Waitress, and I'm not entirely sure it holds up to the hype.  An uber-cool sociology student in my knitting class recommended that I see the film because of its counter-cultural presentation of motherhood.  So, I headed off to the Quad cinema. 

The first 3/4 of the film is a combination of sweet Southern suffering as Jenna, the protagonist, is crushed under the weight of an oppressive marriage and the knowledge that she is pregnant.  Her husband is infantile, controlling, and at times, abusive.  In retaliation, Jenna bakes pies for the pie diner she works at.  Jenna's power comes both from her love of baking and the names she gives her pies.  The creamy (and sometimes mildly disgusting confections) have names like "Leave My Husband Pie" and "Bad Baby Pie", all inspired by what Jenna is thinking or feeling.  Her great plan, to win a pie bake-off and leave her husband for good, is spoiled by the fact that she is pregnant.

The film features many shots of Jenna watching other mothers, horrified by the children and their behavior.  She tells her Ob-gyn that she is not happy about having the baby and does not want to be congratulated.  Each ensuing month of the pregnancy, Jenna becomes more and more miserable as she moves closer to being stuck in her life forever.  The children she observes are bratty and wildly out of control. The mothers are long suffering.  In short, the only real happiness in the film comes from baking pies, the friendships Jenna finds at the restaurant, and "love" as all three waitresses embark on new relationships.  For Jenna, that includes a fling with her doctor.

And here we arrive at the two parts of the movie that serve, ultimately, as its demise.  The affair with Dr. Pomatter is destined for failure and serves as nothing more than a creamy and dangerous confection (think:  diabetics eating "Falling in Love Chocolate Pie").  The class and education differences, along with the fact that Pomatter is "happily" married (that is, not facing any of the
challenges Jenna faces in her own marriage), are early clues that the relationship will end badly.  In a none-too-hidden inspiration from Como Agua Para Chocolate, Jenna's pies make her wildly attractive to Dr. Pomatter. 

And then the movie ends with Jenna giving birth and falling, instantly, in love with her baby.  A deus ex machina ending arrives and she is given a  financial gift from one of her regulars at the diner that allows her to leave her husband.  She buys the old pie diner, spruces it up, and lives the matriarchal fantasy of loving baby and making pie.  It's some kind of Lesbos (without the sex) paradise with pie. 

I can't help but compare it to Sherrybaby, the heart-achingly real portrayal of poverty, abuse, and motherhood.  Waitress is too unrealistic, and too over-the-top sweet to really deliver any compelling commentary about motherhood and the ways in which women continue to struggle with social roles and expectations.  Waitress suggests that in the end, all mothers really do want to be mothers, really will love mothering, and will be somehow naturally fantastic at it.  Some mothers love their roles.  Some mothers are fantastic at mothering.  Some women really, really do want to be mothers.  And others?  Call it "Big Liar Pie". 

An Excellent FEMINIST Critique of Knocked Up.

Thank you very much, egalitarian bookworm, for this review of the uber-shallow Knocked Up and all of the ways in which it contributes to the on-going attack on women's equality.   It's the first review I actually agree with.

Accountability: Making People Do Their Jobs

It's about time.  Carolyn Maloney and Frank Lautenberg introduced cutting edge legislation on Wednesday, 6 June 2007-- (was the name, the ABC act, an inspired reference to the ABC (abstinence, be faithful, use condoms) approach to AIDS education?) to ensure women's access to birth control.  You can read the entire Access to Birth Control legislation here.  I'm delighted to see some movement on this key issue for women.  The announcement from Maloney's website says, "In addition to guaranteeing women the ability to fill birth control prescriptions, the “ABC” Bill would make it illegal for a pharmacy to refuse to return a birth control prescription, or for a pharmacist to intimidate, threaten, or harass customers, or intentionally breach, or threaten to breach, medical confidentiality."

What you need to do:

Contact your legislators (click here to check who your representatives are).  This is an election year, folks, let's make that pressure count!

Read more:

NOW's press release.

Common Dreams

National Women's Law Center

NOW's Action Center

Action Alert: Violence Against Women in Iraq

Go to Anglofille and read her posts about the public stoning of 17 year old Du’a Khalil Aswad in Iraqi Kurdistan on May 5th.  Some of you may have seen the ABC news story, and the horrific killing is getting attention because one of the men involved used his cell phone to film the event.  Anglofille has several good posts, including a good round up of the links (follow the links, because they do a good job of balancing Western and Middle Eastern views and are avoiding).  She also connected readers to the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq,  headed up by Yanar Mohammed, which is trying to bring attention to these issues. 

I'll add just a few more responses that have surfaced:  Common Dreams and Amnesty International Australia also has a good response to the killing and to the government's response. 

Action Steps:

Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq

MADRE, an organization working for the rights of women and families globally

See especially their report, cited by Common Dreams:  "Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy:  Gender-Based Violence and the US War on Iraq"

Amnesty's 2005 report on Women in Iraq

Gender Weirdness

Via Mad Melancholic Feminista, via Majikthise, I tried out the Gender Genie which rates the gender of your writing. On short passages, I rated consistently "female" while on longer entries, I was consistently "male." Weird. Weird, but fun. Check it out!

DAMMIT!

Planned Parenthood Condemns Supreme Court DecisionHealth Center Doors Remain Open

Planned Parenthood today condemned the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart, the chilling first ever federal ban on an abortion method without an exception for women's health.

"The American public should be absolutely outraged by this unprecedented and dangerous intrusion into the private relationship between a woman and her doctor," said Joan Malin, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of New York City, "Today five men with a gavel -- two of whom were handpicked by George W. Bush