Welcome to SheKos! SheKos is a diary series for all Kossacks to explore issues related to feminism, women's history, and equality. We seek to find solutions within and beyond the Democratic Party to improve the lives of women -- and men -- regardless of race, sexual orientation, or economic status. We believe that women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights.
I knew very little about feminism a month ago. I'd never thought much about abortion or women's equality issues. I related to the struggles of other groups - African Americans, gay/lesbian, Labor, and the poor. But I never connected much with the women's movement. My passion was always health care and economic issues.
Then came the Stupak or Hyde II debate. I'd thought very little about abortion during my life, and I had no strong feelings. I was on the side that made it easier to pass the bill. I made such comments in the diary threads. Those comments weren't well received. In fact, a few responses were very nasty. I was angry for a few days. But I kept wondering why these feminists were so intense. When people are really intense, there's often a reason. I began to read the diaries and comments to learn.
I want to say that I've developed a very favorable view of feminism. I've read the diaries and comments, and the people are very positive. They have experienced unfairness as women for being women, and they want to rectify that.
I've read comments that some of you talk to your spouse or partner if they tell a boy don't cry or express emotions. I was taught not to express emotions, and that's made my life much harder so keep it up.
I did some reading about the abortion issue. I've learned that just because abortion is legal, doesn't mean it is affordable or even accessible. In 2005, there was an abortion provider in only 13% of U.S. counties. Also, about 20% of abortion clinics had actual violence against them. Yes, violence!! That's not to mention all the protestors outside who harass people going in and out. I can see why some people are very angry. The anti-choice side hasn't overturned Roe v Wade, but they have succeeded in making abortion harder for some to obtain. In 1977, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which prohibits taxpayer funded abortions for Medicaid recipients. This had a substantial impact. There are currently 53 million people enrolled in Medicaid. I have read personal testimonies of women who couldn't afford an abortion and tried to end pregnancy on their own winding up in the Emergency Room yes this has happened as a result of the Hyde Amendment.
However, a May 2009 Gallup polls shows the anti-choice side is gaining on us. The May 2009 Gallup poll shows 51% of Americans pro-life (or anti-choice) and 42% are pro-choiceThe anti-choice side is gaining on us even though America is more religiously diverse. I can't say why this has happened, but I do know the anti-choice side has made the debate more real by making it about a "culture of life."
I believe the pro-choice side needs to personalize the debate more. I'm very impressed with how NYCEVE personalizes the health care debate by showing true, real life health care horror stories. Alan Grayson has talked about the Harvard study showing 45,000 people die each year because they don't have health insurance. The pro-choice side needs to do the same with the abortion debate. We need to illustrate the suffering that happens when women can't afford or access abortion services. We need to illustrate stories of women who tried ending their pregnancy and wound up in the hospital or died. These stories are out there. We could also illustrate what things were like in the pre Roe v Wade days.
Of course, there is no one size fits all approach. The pro-choice movement will have to tailor its approach based on the target audience. This is also not a debate about religion or against religious people. There are many sincere people of faith who are on our side - progressive Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and spiritual people. There are also a lot of religious people who are personally uncomfortable about abortion, but if faced with a hard situation would agree it was the best option. There are also people it would be pointless to begin any dialogue with. Are we ever going to convince Tony Perkins or Pat Robertson?
Also, the anti-feminist side has claimed the mantle of family values and we need to take it back. I was in 10th grade during the 1980 election and the ERA debate. We had two anti-ERA women talk to the Sociology class.The one anti-ERA activist began by saying that pro-ERA women were "not christians." She had slides showing comments by leading feminists that should ERA pass, they would leave their husbands and children. They said if ERA passed, the divorce rate would skyrocket, there would be unisex toilets, marriage would end, and lesbians would be able to adopt. The argument in the media and by evangelical groups was fairly simple. The pro-ERA side was anti-family, anti-traditional values, & anti religious. The anti-ERA side was pro-family, pro-traditional values, with good moral and religious values. If people heard that, and knew nothing more how would they vote? I wrote this in the comments section of a SheKos diary and I'm copying and pasting this intelligent reply:
There is no basis for that connection -- it was made by repeating that feminists are anti-family over again enough times until the assumption became a meme, and then it became an axiom. And it is easier to create that axiom when it has emotional appeal to a certain ilk.
I realize that was 29 years ago. But I do believe feminists and the Democratic Party needs to reclaim this debate. We must repeat our own themes over and over again until they become a meme, and then an axiom. The economic fairness issues the Democratic Party raises are also moral issues. I think the pro-ERA campaign didn't fight back enough against these smears. How many have heard about Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition? They have distributed millions of voter guides in church lobbies getting people to vote against their economic interests. Why is the pro-family position always the one that is anti-choice, anti-gay, or involves tax cuts for the rich? What percentage of families has this helped? But they get away with this election after election.
Which political party believes that health care is a right, and not a privledge? Universal health care is the pro-family position.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan cut the AFDC program. These draconian budget cuts forced many families to separate so they would still be eligible for benefits. How anti-family was that?
Which political party believes the wealthy and corporations should pay their fair share of taxes so the poor and the middle class can have more? Isn't this a pro-family position? Ted Kennedy was the richest man in the Senate, but advocated tax increases on himself to pay for programs that helped the poor and middle class. What does that say about his moral and family values?
I think the Democratic Party needs to take up affordable child care and promote programs that help working parents. The U.S has a 40 hour work week. In England, this is 35 hours. In France, it is 30 hours. In Europe, not only is the work week shorter but they get more paid vacation time. The U.S. has seen massive productivity growth the past 30 years, but almost all of it has gone into the pockets of corporations and not workers. We need to shorten the work week, increase paid time off, without any pay cut. This would also help with unemployment. How pro-family is that? How many people on this site could use the extra time off? Wouldn't almost all families benefit? The Republicans would fiercely oppose this. Wouldn't this be an opportunity to call them out for their hypocrisy and show the country which political party is truly pro-family?
There is also the question of affordable child care. Karen Christopher wrote the following in the April 2002 issue of The American Prospect:
First, single mothers need more access to subsidized or low-cost child care. Low-income families spend as much as 35 percent of their incomes on child care-much more than higher-income families. In an article published in the Prospect ["Support for Working Families," January 1-15, 2001], Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers suggest that if the United States were to spend the same share of gross domestic product on subsidized child care and paid leave as France does, we would need to increase expenditures by at most $85 billion yearly. This seems a huge outlay, but it is only about 3 percent of President George W. Bush's recently proposed $2.1 trillion budget for 2002 and far less than the annual cost of his tax cut.
Yes, the U.S. provides citizens with a child care tax credit, but the credit is very inadequate as way too many of our low income parents spend way too much on child care.
Wouldn't that be a pro-family agenda? The Republicans would oppose it. Wouldn't this be another opportunity to portray for who they really are - the friends of corporations and not of the people?
I did some online research on how feminists can reclaim the family values debate. I was surprised to find only one article. To my big surprise, there is very little written on the subject. That's an outstanding article by the National Council of Jewish Women. They state:
Feminism is all about choices and improving the world. Feminism is a family value.
Here is a link to the article - http://www.ncjw.org/...
The article goes on to say that families today are very diverse - they include the traditional nuclear family but also single parents, single people with no children, gay/lesbian partners, and people caring for elderly parents. The article talks about other countries have much better child and dependent care funding.
When reading the feminist diaries one thing I noticed was some division between white feminism and black feminism (womanism). I read the heated debate in the threads, and it bothered me because there are very nice people on both sides who have much in common. I talked to one of the retired women pastors at church who gives guest sermons about this debate. She is very much against the Hyde and Stupak amendments. She said building bridges is all about sitting down and getting to know each other.
I suddenly remembered the sermon she once gave. She is a lesbian, but was married years ago. She became very depressed after her failed marriage. How could she not know herself? Her husband was a good man who did not deserve to be hurt. How could she have hurt him by not knowing herself? Then she read a book "Life on The Color Line." This is a man retelling what it was like to grow up Italian in Virginia, but black in Indiana. That's when she realized she had an enormous gift. She knew heterosexual privilege through and through, and as a lesbian she knew anxiety, intolerance, and oppression. She had the gift of knowing both sides of one oppression.
Most of us haven't lived both sides of something. We haven't lived both as a heterosexual or homosexual, both rich and poor, or know both sides of something else. We understand our pain and struggles, but we don't know somebody else's. That's okay. We need to try and understand people who had struggles we did not. Also, they need to understand we didn't live their life. And give it time. But my hope is we can all become friends, get to know each other, and over time understand the other's perspective. That's men and women, black, white, brown, and red, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Spiritual, and Athiest, rich, poor, and middle class, gay and straight. As Paul Wellstone once said, "we all do better when we all do better."
In closing, I want everyone to know I'll continue to read your diaries and comments. Thank you and I consider you all my friends!
SheKos is open to your submissions. Please email Angry Mouse at angrymouse.grrr@gmail.com with your ideas.