Syndicate and Hague

There’s an article in Sunday’s Washington Post by Linda Hirshman that I’ll be getting to in just a moment, but first I want to touch on something I mentioned in a previous “on the issues” post. In it, I said that the “culture wars” topics - like gay marriage or abortion - were a distraction. This is true. When presented as issues of morality they are intended to distract people and drive an impenetrable wedge between them and the people who are “immoral.”

The problem, however, is that both of these issues have very real impacts - not only on peoples’ lives and choices, but in how the people who are the objects of each of those debates is treated.

I’m not going to talk about gay marriage today, but I am going to talk about abortion. Linda Hirshman’s article first.

My generation of women has been spoiled in that we have (dwindling, but present) access to abortion. Why is this spoiling? Because, apparently, the fact that we have it makes us not care whether we have it. The anti-choice fundamentalists love to wave fetuses in your face to show you how awful abortion is, but you rarely - if ever - see pro-choice people waving around images of women dead in a pool of blood from hemorrhaging after an illegal abortion.

Sorry for the shock value, but it’s true, it’s our legacy, it’s what has happened. It’s what will happen again because when abortion is illegal, women suffer. For instance, Hirshman cites West Germany’s prohibitive abortion laws and what they meant for women travelers.

In the 1980s, when abortion was severely limited in then-West Germany, border guards sometimes required German women returning from foreign trips to undergo vaginal examinations to make sure that they hadn’t illegally terminated a pregnancy while they were abroad. According to news stories and other accounts, the guards would stop young women and ask them about drugs, then look for evidence of abortion, such as sanitary pads or nightgowns, in their cars, and eventually force them to undergo a medical examination – as West German law empowered them to do.

Think this is outlandish? Couldn’t happen here? Please.

four states — Louisiana, Missisippi, North and South Dakota — as having trigger laws explicitly aimed at making abortion criminal upon Roe’ s demise, and seven others that have committed to acting to the extent that the court may allow

And the trouble may come with crossing state lines and criminality there.

“To speak of the fetus’ ” home state, and make the home it shares with the mother “a basis” for controlling a woman’s ability to get an abortion might “make sense,” Columbia law professor Gerald Neuman wrote in 1993 when abortion rights were last in peril.

Now, the difference between Obama and McCain on this is clear. McCain has pledged to pack the Supreme Court with justices in the vein of Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas (extremely conservative). Among these men are the three youngest justices who may have careers on the court for as long as 30-35 years. They are entrenched. Any more conservative justices and the next 30 years will be a nightmare for women, people of color, GLBT folks, free speech, torture discussions, social programs, etc.

And let me remind you, on the more liberal side, John Paul Stevens will not last out another administration. The man is hanging on by his 88-year-old teeth.

Anyway, on McCain’s issues page, the very first entry on the “Human Dignity and Sanctity of Life” section (sigh) is this:

Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the benchwill overturn it.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.

Blah blah blah it goes on about “strength” of pregnant women “choosing life” and faith based hoo-ha and nothing about sex education or anything that actually prevents abortion from being needed as an option nor anything about social programs to help women/families who choose to have children. So - as usual - pro-life as long as the kid isn’t born yet.

Obama’s site has a reproductive choice section

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy:
Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

So there it is - you choose between the guy who won’t tell you how to not get pregnant, force you to keep it if you do, and leave you out on your own once you’ve given birth OR the guy who will work to get you the education and the access to contraception you need to not get pregnant in the first place, give you the opportunity to make the choice if you do, and in other sections has all kinds of things about supporting families/mothers. (Obama doesn’t cynically roll together helping families and his reproductive choice section into the same thing like McCain does.)

Yeah, this was a little late. I spent all my blogging time finishing a freelance project so you were cheated out of your first issues post so I could make money. Disgusting. It’ll never happen again. (What will happen is that my three graduate classes will become an excuse. Sad.)

One of my pet issues has become equal pay for equal work. I had one of my “I’m not gonna take it anymore” moments last winter, and have been paying a lot of attention to the issue since then (and promoting it to my female peers).

I’m going to insert a caveat here before I start - I’m talking about gender-based equal pay for equal work because McCain and Obama have clear stances on the issue. Unfortunately, the racial disparities in pay aren’t being addressed explicitly by either candidate so I can’t position them on what they plan to do (if anything) about that gap.

As I have a certain insight into my own industry, I’ll address the argument that is raised by people who want to downplay the significant disparity in male vs. female pay (we women are making 77 cents to the male dollar). People who dismiss this will say “but women leave the workforce to raise children” or “but you’re comparing all jobs and there are more women in lower paying jobs” and I want to make it clear - even controlling for those two things, women still make less.

Take a look at the comments on this feministing article about pay in technology. Don’t even pay attention to the actual story, just read some of the comments. I’ll pull in a couple for you:

I have a friend who like me helps build software who quit her job recently because she found out the man sitting next to her, doing the same thing she was and who had the same seniority, was making $30,000 more.

Both myself and my partner are scientists in the biotech industry, and we are essentially the same level– a Bachelor’s Degree. He’s worked for 1 year longer than I, however, he has consistently made 5-8k more a year than I. He has also always had it “easier,” meaning his bosses have never micro-managed him or made him work extra hours to the extent that my bosses (all male) have. It’s very frustrating to come home at the end of the day and share our experiences… he takes long lunch breaks, never works more than 8 hours, has 1 more week than paid vacation and makes 8k more a year than I. He even had a bonus and a raise at the end of the year (me- nothing). And as I type this, my boss is having me stay late tonight, is irritating as hell and I make so much less, no bonuses, perks, etc. What’s more, I graduated in less than 4 years with a near perfect GPA and a more difficult degree, where he took 6 years, had a horrible average and no undergrad research experience like I did (and yes, we went to the same school).

I worked in IT for academia for nearly 13 years where salaries are a matter of public record (because they are paid by taxpayers). Despite this openness, I found that I have consistently made less than equally qualified men, on the order of $5-10K.

i work at a dotcom and i’ve had the exact same (literally, down to the #) experience as JessicaNOW’s friend. I found out that the guy sitting across from me (who has less experience and skill than i do) was making 30% more. when i found out, i did a salary survey in my area for my job and sent it to the head of HR. in response, they did an investigation and gave me and my female co-worker, who also has the same title but has been here 8 years (i’ve been here 3 and the man’s been here 6 months), a 8% raise. she and i have identical salaries, so he’s still making 20% more than either of us. i also talked to both my supervisor and her supervisor about the salary difference and they both told me there was nothing they could do about it. there’s a general undercurrent of misogyny here - every woman who has risen to any kind of power or who doesn’t tow the line has been marginalized or ground down until she leaves.

If you have access to pay records at your institution, I highly recommend taking a look at them.

Anyway, this can bring us to Obama and McCain. And Lilly Ledbetter.

You deserve some background on this case. I wrote about Ledbetter earlier this year. But, in summary, the Supreme Court ruled because Ledbetter did not file a complaint within 180 days of her first paycheck she couldn’t sue her employer even though she was making almost half of her male equals.

180 days of the first paycheck with a disparity. SIX MONTHS. You would have to figure out the disparity and sue your employer within SIX MONTHS. Any idea how that court case would go? You would be an opportunist. You would most likely lose.

Obama’s stance on issues of equal pay are aligned with women’s priorities. We want equal pay for equal work. Nothing more and nothing less.

Obama was an original co-sponsor of Congress’s attempt to pass legislation that would reverse the result of the Ledbetter case. (NPR) and has outlined his priorities for women’s pay on his campaign website.

Fighting for Pay Equity:
Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.

Expanding Paid Medical Leave: Today, three-out-of-four low-wage workers have no paid sick leave. It is fundamentally unfair that a single mom playing by the rules can get fired or lose wages because her child gets sick. Barack Obama supports efforts to guarantee workers seven days of paid sick leave per year, a moderate proposal that should not impose too onerous a burden on employers.

McCain’s stance on equal pay is to not allow legal recourse, but essentially to trust business to do the right thing.

“I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what’s being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems,” McCain told reporters yesterday. “This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.”

Without legal recourse, there is no way for equal pay to be enforced or even exposed. Without legal recourse, businesses can continue to get the “gender discount” when they hire women. Without legal recourse, we will never close the gender gap in pay because without legal recourse, businesses will not change their practices because they are not held accountable for their practices.

You can read more about Obama’s stances on all kinds of women’s issues at his website.

I would direct you to the part of John McCain’s website that had information about his stances on women’s issues if he had one. I guess the only thing remotely related is the section titled “the sanctity of life” and includes titles like: “Overturning Roe v. Wade,” “Protecting Marriage,” “Protecting Children from Internet Pornography,” and “Protecting Children from Online Predators.” So have fun with that.

To those of you who have pointed out to me lately that my blog is lacking in its previous copiousness…you’re right. I have been a bad blogger, which is partly due to a hectic life, partly due to a newfound sleep schedule (seriously, wow!), and to Twitter.

Twitter has served me well during this mess of a Democratic primary and it has also served to mute the flow of blog postings because quick hits that might have wound up in my blog before now sit in 140 character form on my twitter feed. I will consider pulling the feed into the blog here, but that’s not going to happen right away. If you’d like to keep tabs on my quick and dirty comments about random things, you can find me at http://twitter.com/saralovesyou.

I’ve been feeling a little social-networked/Web 2.0′d out lately, as well as a little politicked out, which has resulted in sluggish blogging on my part.

All that said…

It is time for you to stop now, Geraldine Ferraro.

It’s actually time for all Clinton supporters to take a step back, breathe, and realize that it is over. Game. Over. Obama won, fair and square. He out-campaigned, out-finessed, and just plain old out did the Clinton campaign.

But them’s just the numbers. While I’m irritated by the Clinton campaign’s Rovian fuzzy math, I’m downright angry at Ferraro and other feminists of her generation who are not temporarily being, but showing themselves as flat out racist in the course of this election.

I actually heard a few days ago, and I will not repeat my source because I personally would be embarrassed to have anyone know I’d said such a thing, from an older woman who said that “In my opinion, Obama is just another white man.”

And here is a problem among many…the intention of that remark was that Obama is just as sexist and mistreats Clinton based on her gender as any other man with power (read: white man) has. But the implications of that remark run a much more troubling path.

I will be the first to argue that all men–men of color included–have access to ways of power/privilege in ways that women do not. This does not mean that they have it any “easier” or “better,” but that there are avenues of communication that are shared between them as men.

However, it is tragic that the same women who recognize male privilege don’t see the ways white women have access to ways of power/privilege in ways that men of color do not.

I just can’t bring myself to go over all the intricacies of this argument because I am So. Tired. of all of it. And all over these here Interwebs, there are people making headway into the very basic nature of both of my statements. Try Jack and Jill Politics or Feministing for a sample. In posts and comments you’ll see problems. You’ll also see compelling arguments.

I’m firmly situated behind Obama as a candidate, but I see his flaws. There’s a certain “chivalry” to his dealings with Clinton that have struck feminists as being condescending (pulling out her chair for her at the debate, for instance). More troubling about how he deals with women was when he called a reporter “sweetie” when she kept annoying him as TV reporters tend to do.

The women who came before me in particular had to deal with men casting them aside professionally, dismissing them, muting their interactions with endearments, and downplaying their intelligence and decision-making skills. This isn’t relegated to the past: just as we don’t live in a post-racist society, we don’t live in a post-misogyny society.

However, there is no argument for the racism of the white feminists in response to Obama. There just isn’t. He’s a compelling candidate in his own right. A candidate whose speeches inspire and whose ideas are based in a solid liberal philosophy. He’s a candidate who established a community-based campaign fueled by small donations from a broad base. He showed himself to be the better candidate. If he can organize this well in the general election, we will be handing McCain his ass on a platter. It will be beautiful.

Nonetheless. Clinton lost. Obama won. We need to move on from that, but we’ll be dwelling in the racial/gender divide for some time now. I hope it becomes productive.

*Note: I’m not super happy with this post because I’d like to dissect everything more. As I said, however, I’m so freakin tired of all this.

I’ve developed a new morbid addiction. The Ron Paul Survival Report is an awesome site that is essentially devoted to showing what is wrong with Ron Paul. The blogger is thorough as hell. Every time I’ve checked his sources to make sure he was accurate (I try to vet the people I quote, you know), he’s been right on.

Most recently, Ron Paul is doing another one of his “money bombs” on MLK day. Ignoring his history of racist statements and affiliations, the general philosophies of extreme free market economics he espouses (which disenfranchise the vast majority of us), and the plethora of white supremacists who have flocked to his campaign (seriously)…RP is reinforcing his status as racist by actually speaking at Bob Jones University tonight at 5 p.m. It’s currently on his website (I checked).

So. Do you folks know about Bob Jones University? Well…let me enlighten you. Back in 2000, candidate George Bush spoke at Bob Jones, which set of a firestorm even from some of the most ridiculously conservative folks around (Bill Kristol, I’m looking at you). Why? From the Salon.com archives.

The school refused to admit any African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, most unmarried African-American applicants were denied admission, presumably to prevent interracial dating. After 1975, the school — under court order — began admitting unmarried African-American students, though according to the U.S. government, it rejected “any applicant known to be a partner in an interracial marriage.”

After the 1975 court order, Bob Jones administrators established rules requiring expulsion for any student who married or dated outside his or her race or belonged to an organization that advocated or encouraged others to marry or date outside his or her race.

In 2000, this was still the policy. After the controversy stirred up by Bush’s visit, they subsequently dropped the policy. In 2000. Eight years ago.

Now, you could argue: “But they changed the policy!” Despite the fact that I think that’s crap, I still think a candidate (or anyone) should not speak somewhere that is this misogynistic. From the Bob Jones website:

Dress Code for Women

Classroom/general dress consists of a dress or top and skirt; however, pants may be worn for some recreational activities. Shorts may never be worn outside the residence halls and fitness center.

Pants

• Loose-fitting pants may be worn between women’s residence halls, for athletic events, and to homes in the area.
• Loose-fitting jeans may be worn in and between women’s residence halls and when participating in activities where the durability of the fabric is important, such as skiing and ice-skating.
• Low-riders are not permitted.
• Shorts may be worn only inside the residence halls and fitness center

Other

• Combat boots, hiking boots or shoes that give this appearance are not permitted. Leather sandals, including those with a strap between the toes, will be permitted at times when women are not required to wear hose. Flip flops made of rubber, plastic, etc., are not permitted in public.
• Hairstyles should be neat, orderly, and feminine. Avoid cutting-edge fads and cuts so short that they take on a masculine look.

For some added hilariousness:

Abercrombie & Fitch and its subsidiary Hollister have shown an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness in their promotions. In protest, we will not allow articles displaying their logos to be worn, carried, or displayed (even if covered or masked in some way).

Anyway, so, whatever. I’m not worried that RP is going to win the Republican nomination, much less the general election, but I do feel concerned that a certain segment of people respond to his rhetoric. It’s isolationist, self-interested, and generally loathsome. Anyone who believes we shouldn’t be funding public education is setting up a situation in which the poor remain poor and the rich get richer. From his website:

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

Yeah. Um. Hello? If schooling is funded by local taxes, poor areas will not have competitive schools. I see no way in which this doesn’t disproportionately (moreso than now) advantage people who already have money and power. If your local tax base is small, where is money coming from to fund education?

Here’s the thing. This whole “personal liberty”/”I know what’s best to do with my money”/”personal responsibility” argument is just one thing: extreme selfishness. We live in a society, which is like being part of a household. A household has expenses. Let’s say we each need to put in 50% of our incomes so that we can pay our bills and improve things. Great. I’m a contributing member of the household. I’m willing to do what I need to in order for this to be a good place to live.

Now here comes along someone who says “This is ridiculous! Why should I put in 50% of my hard-earned money? You don’t do things right. You waste money on things I don’t think we should bother with. Let’s just leave it up to each individual to pay for each thing as it comes.”

You’d never live with someone like that unless you are a fool. You’d think they were supremely selfish and wonder how they expected to be part of a household when they obviously placed no value on it.

Anyway.

The images below are from the Ron Paul Chalk Flickr set. They make me laugh about us.