Republican Candidates and Rape: Still Blaming the Woman

First published August 30, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/08/30/republican-candidates-and-rape-still-blaming-the-woman/

Like the Famous Quote of the Supreme Court Justice who said that he may not be able to define pornography, yet knew when he saw it, representatives in state and federal legislatures may refuse to say, “vagina” or “uterus,” yet they want to regulate it. Earlier this year, female members of Michigan’s legislature were sanctioned and silenced for using anatomical terms to describe their female reproductive and sexual organs, and for speaking about permanent male birth control. Apparently, male representatives to Michigan’s House and Senate find the female anatomy so repulsive that mere mention of the actual medical terms was viewed as damaging to the decorum preferred by these men, which, I assume, makes it o.k. to regulate what can and can’t happen to the female body, as long as the body parts they are regulating are not mentioned. The problem I have with all of this is that these same members of Congress do not even understand the physiology or function of the female body’s reproductive organs, and yet they want to regulate them.

With the addition of Paul Ryan to the Romney ticket, talk has come around again to protecting a woman’s right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. Ryan’s stance has been proven in his support for legislation that has pended before Congress, and that stance is that he would not even allow for abortion in cases of rape. Republican rhetoric (Rep. Todd Akin, specifically) has actually gone as far as to claim that while the rapist should be punished, the child (who is the result of rape) should not. Presumably, a woman seeking an abortion after being raped is punishing the child for the violent behavior of its “father.” Fortunately, I have never been raped. However, I imagine that being raped, finding out that I’m pregnant and having to undergo an abortion would seem equivalent to double indemnity.

What would Representative Akin have done with the children forcibly born as the result of rape? If we assume the rapist is caught, convicted and sentenced to prison, then who raises the child? Apparently, the woman who is raped should be forced to raise the child. Oh, but isn’t there always that choice of adoption? Yes, I am sure there is a list of people waiting who would be thrilled to adopt the child who is the result of a rape. Even if the adoptive parents were not aware of the circumstances surrounding this child’s conception, what happens twenty years later when the child decides to seek his or her birth mother? (As we all know, more often than not, a father is left off a birth certificate in adoption cases, and thus is protected forever in anonymity.) How does that child feel when he or she calls “mom” and is told that he or she is the product of rape, and that is why he or she was “unwanted” and put up for adoption? Then again, maybe rape victims who are forced to bear the offspring of rape would be allowed to remain off the birth certificate to protect their privacy. Maybe the father only could be listed. He could be the one to do the explaining about the child’s conception. And, I suppose if we forced women to bear the children that resulted from rape, they’d have an easier time proving their case in court to get a conviction of the rapist. The DNA paternity would be a perfect piece of evidence for the prosecution, no?

Let’s return to the lack of knowledge of and the refusal to speak in medical and anatomical terms on behalf of representatives who want to regulate the same parts about which they cannot speak. Rep. Stephen Freind, who is not a medical doctor, insists that pregnancy from rape is extremely rare because women’s bodies “secrete a secretion” that kills sperm. Really? Women’s bodies possess a chemical that kills sperm? Why can’t we just turn that on at will to use as birth control? Why invent nonoxyl-9? Why not just tap women’s bodies for this sperm-killing “secretion”? If stress and fear could expel a pregnancy, then teen pregnancy would likely be more rare than pregnancy from rape.

It is terrifying to me that men sit in Congress who know nothing—absolutely nothing—about women’s bodies and are the same people who not only wish to, but also have the ability, through legislation, to control women’s bodies. Not only do they want to stop abortions for any reason, but they also want to redefine rape in the most narrow terms. They believe that by doing so, they can reduce abortions. And, even if pregnancy from rape is rare, it is not non-existent. Regardless of whether a woman is appalled at being pregnant and wants to abort the child that is the result of rape, she must still be the one to undergo the abortion procedure.

On a closing note, the Representatives I name herein, amongst others, have already been elected to office. They’re proposing these kinds of legislation because they’re in a position to do so. I’ve said it before and will likely say it again this election season: we need to carefully examine the people behind the names on the ballot. We can’t allow advertisements to influence us. We must look at real actions, voting records, and/or other experience that demonstrates the particular candidate’s likelihood to protect our right to control our own bodies.

What Makes an Attractive Candidate?

First published August 23, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/08/23/what-makes-an-attractive-candidate/

PHOTO: SUNDAY KOFAX

For a number of reasons, former Vice President Dick Cheney has never been one of my favored people or respected representatives. His latest comment about Sarah Palin rankles me further. I share Cheney’s sentiment that McCain’s choice of Palin as his running mate sealed the election as a loss for McCain, and his qualification of that opinion that Governor Palin was not capable of being president. However, I am appalled at his sexist attempt to backtrack over any offense he might have caused by claiming Palin was not qualified.

Mr. Cheney said, “I like Governor Palin. I’ve met her. I know her. She’s an attractive candidate.”

What?

If we’re talking about a candidate as attractive, whether the candidate is male or female, I believe “attractive” would be defined as being related to the qualities possessed by the candidate that make him or her acceptable and desirable for the position for which he or she is a candidate. Herein, when Mr. Cheney already disqualifies Ms. Palin based on his opinion that she is not capable of meeting the challenge of the job, he is most certainly referring to her appearance.

We all need to wake up and stop voting based on appearance versus substance and ability. I wish as we consider nominees as candidates for political campaigns, we were presented with resumes as do employers see from job applicants. We see the paper and possibly some back-up proof of a person’s education, experience and accomplishments but no picture of him or her. Once we decide who seems most qualified, we choose one from this pool to nominate. Only then do we “conduct interviews” through their public, in-person campaign. What a relief that would be for accomplished, intelligent, committed people who might have acne scars, use a wheel chair or have a prosthesis of some kind to be able to run for office without their appearance (of ability or inability) to detract from their otherwise obvious qualifications!

What if the major parties in this country were required to examine resumes and choose potential candidates based on the information presented and the back-up proof of the claimed accomplishments? What if they couldn’t judge the “electability” of a person based on his or her appearance? What if all of us could not? I realize we live in a pictorial and digital age. We feel connection with people by face-to-face conversations, and certainly hiring decisions are not based on “paper alone” but rather a combination of the written listing of a person’s accomplishments and his or her ability to interact one-on-one, and to answer the problems posed in the position that needs to be filled. It’s nice to “connect” with a candidate as he or she speaks and conducts him or her self in public.

At the same time, the “attractiveness” of a candidate cannot be based on his or her physical appearance in the slightest. Aside from whether women themselves want to take on challenging political roles while parenting, or can remain committed to challenging jobs long-term while having young children, women need to stop being judged and either loved or hated for their external appearances. The job of Vice President or President is not the September cover model for VOGUE or the swimsuit issue of SPORTS ILLUSTRATED. Whether someone would look good in the fashions on the pages of VOGUE or in what is claimed as a swimsuit in the pages of S.I., does not qualify or disqualify her for government office.

We all must vote based on whether the candidates are attractive due to their qualities and experience, not on whether they’ve ever been the “bachelor of the month” inCOSMOPOLITAN—one of the “qualifications” touted by a campaign in my home state of Massachusetts for state senate. We must challenge ourselves to read about and listen to candidates, male or female, and hear their message before we determine whether they “look” presidential or physically attractive. Cheney’s comment merely proves that the old-boy network still largely controls our political parties. This is something we women must seriously consider as we vote this November.

Book Review and Reflection of "The Day the Falls Stood Still"

Role Reversal

First published August 16, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/08/16/role-reversal/

In THE DAY THE FALLS STOOD STILL, (by Cathy Marie Buchanan, Voice, 2009) we see Elizabeth (Bess) fall in love with Tom. Bess is a young woman who was born into a life of privilege. Family circumstances change, and she finds herself learning to sew for a living to help her mother support the family. She is forced to leave her private boarding school, as well. Once home, she falls in love with Tom Cole, a local boy who grew up in a small cabin near Niagra Falls where he learned to read the river, fish and hunt from his grandfather, a local legend. Of course, even though Bess sews for a living, her mother disapproves of Tom. She is betrothed to the brother of her boarding school roommate, much to her chagrin. When Bess’s sister, Isabelle, takes her own life by drowning herself in the falls, it is Tom who seeks Bess when he finds the body. Bess learns that Isabelle was pregnant, and when the family fortune was lost and Isabelle’s fiancé spurned her, she sees Isabelle felt she had no choice other than suicide. Bess swears Tom and the undertaker to secrecy about the pregnancy, and is dutiful through her sister’s wake. Unable to bear her grief any longer on her own, she goes to visit Tom at his boarding house, and is seen by residents of the small town, of course.

The family’s recovery seems in peril, as Bess was expected to marry Edward Atwell, and save them from certain ruin. Bess determines she will marry Tom, regardless of her parents’ dismay. One would think Bess a headstrong woman, ahead of her time, willing to make sacrifices for love. Yet, wouldn’t that character seem cliché? Bess does not sacrifice her principles, rather, later in their marriage, she asks her husband, Tom, to do so, claiming it is for the benefit of the family.

Tom goes off to serve in World War I and returns an emotionally disturbed man. Bess rallies to help him recover his sense of the world by coaxing him back to his beloved river. Yet, she heals him only to force him to compromise the very principles on which his well-being rests. She convinces him to take work for the hydroelectric power company, the very industry threatening the river that seems to flow through his body like blood. For a time, Tom is able to fend off the guilt he feels at digging channels that will divert the water flow. Ultimately, though, he becomes obsessed, manic. He hikes the gorge for hours, takes measurements and records them in a notebook.

When he is no longer the man she fell in love with as the result not of war wounds, but rather due to sacrificing his principles for a paycheck, Bess decides she doesn’t care about the house that seemed so important and that she no longer believes Tom’s salary is necessary to their well-being. She decides she can support the family with her sewing alone, and that they will do without anything else Tom’s salary might provide. And, when Tom seems he may be unwilling to leave his post, Bess makes sure he is fired from it by taking his diaries and charts and giving them to a reporter so that a critique of the power company may appear in the paper.

It is not just women who suffer the “problem that has no name.” Men, too, suffer in our society today and throughout history with the roles into which they are cast. Men are to work, to bring in the money for the household. No one ever asks whether they like the work they do, or whether it asks them to compromise their principles. Quite possibly, had they remained in rented rooms, Bess might have brought in the main income, while Tom was “unemployed” and raised their children by taking them fishing, hunting and teaching them to tend the garden and make repairs to the home in which they rented rooms as a way of lowering their cash outlay. Bess may be seen as a woman ahead of her time, or one who is romantically revered for her ability to leave behind a world of privilege for love. The story we do not hear is that of Tom. We do not learn enough about men who go off to war because society expects it of him. We do not learn about his suffering, which is kept quiet, when he returns emotionally wrought. We do not read about the bitter pill he swallows each morning he reports to work for a company that is essentially diverting his metaphoric soul as it takes water from the river. Rather than a “modern woman,” I see Bess as manipulative and conniving as she claims her mother and other townswomen to be.

In our consideration of the situation of women in our society, of how work might better accommodate family life and of how we might all be equal, with not just one sex having the most freedom, we must consider these untold stories of men. We must work toward altering the societal reaction to a father as homemaker and primary childcare provider. We need to value the work of raising children and maintaining a household, just as much as we hold dear the world of paid work and career, whether it is a woman or man who does either job.

Sin in the Second City, as well as New York, L.A., Etc. - Book Review and Reflection

First published August 9, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/08/09/sin-in-the-second-city-as-well-as-new-york-l-a-etc-2/

Karen Abbott wrote about prostitution in her book SIN IN THE SECOND CITY: MADAMS, MINISTERS, PLAYBOYS AND THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA’S SOUL, which was published by Random House in 2008. This nonfiction book tells the story of Minna and Ada Everleigh, who took Chicago by storm with their upscale Everleigh Club, a stark contrast to the seedier prostitution practices in the city. Minna and Ada are credited with operating an establishment that offered the most extreme services connected with prostitution, also did so with regard for the health and welfare of its female employees. The Everleigh sisters were shrewd business women with Ada serving as head of human resources and accounting and Minna as the operations manager, advertising and PR director.

SIN IN THE SECOND CITY dispels some of the myths and confirms many suspicions one might have about prostitution and its reform at the turn of the Century. The Everleigh Club was in operation from 1900 to 1911, just over one hundred years ago. The controversy over prostitution continues today. We still hear of famous, wealthy and politically powerful people who avail themselves of the services of prostitutes, and we still find reformers and policymakers who, in an attempt to crack down on prostitution, actually put people in danger of further harm with their well-meaning campaigns. For example, there has been a crackdown wherein prostitutes who carry condoms have those condoms used as evidence against them, as proof of their commission of the crime of prostitution. Additionally, while public health employees distribute condoms to sex workers, police confiscate them from the women in an effort to deter them from engaging in prostitution, at least for that night. (See editorial in the NEW YORK TIMES by Megan McLemore.) Even as HIV positive status continues to increase for prostitutes worldwide, police use confiscation of condoms and threat of prosecution for possessing condoms.

Unsurprisingly, interviews with prostitutes confirm that confiscation of condoms does not stop sex work, but rather makes it riskier for all involved. In an effort to support the use of condoms by sex workers and their clientele, New York has pending legislation that would disallow condoms as evidence in prostitution cases.

The same battle continues today. A hundred years ago, the reformers attacked the widely known Everleigh Club and eventually succeeded in putting it out of business. As we know, prostitution in Chicago and elsewhere did not end when the Everleigh Club closed. What ended was any sort of protection for the women engaged in sex work, such as those found as courtesans in such a club where a physician was employed to help cure and readily treat disease. Even as reformers wanted to stop human trafficking that was associated with prostitution, merely closing down the Everleigh Club did not do anything toward reducing sex work or human trafficking. The same holds true today, when in an attempt to stop prostitution, our police departments (New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco are mentioned in the New York Times op-ed piece) merely increase the likelihood of HIV transmission, along with other sexually transmitted illnesses. Just as the reformers in Chicago likely realized, we need to see that making sex work less safe does nothing to curb its existence.

Prostitution is a hot button issue in feminist circles. Some women claim it is empowering as they are essentially business owners who shape their work environment and support children who might otherwise starve. Some claim sex work as the ultimate evil, something that must be eradicated as its nature is degrading to anyone participating in it. (See Allyson Whipple’s Her Circle post here to read more about the controversy.) Regardless of where one stands on the issue itself, safety and health amongst prostitutes and their clients should remain a priority.

Take Charge of Our Health Care - Book Review and Reflection

First published August 2, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/08/02/taking-charge-of-our-health-care/

I work in a women’s health clinic and often interview patients about their gynecological care. Quite often, I hear from women about how little they like their gynecologist or primary care physician. They report to me everything from indifference in behavior to things that are egregious to the point of being reportable to licensing boards. I always remind patients that it is their choice about whom they see for medical care, and that they can, even in the middle of treatment, seek another care provider.

Several of my friends are midwives and doulas (labor/birth support providers). They talk about patients who feel badly about “abandoning” their ob/gyn, especially if the person is someone they’ve relied upon for gynecological care for several years. This happened to me with my first pregnancy. I knew I wanted a midwife and a home birth. However, until I found a midwife, I began my maternity care with my gynecologist. After my first visit, I knew we had a deep divide in our view of birth. (My doctor actually told me that having an epidural was just like natural birth because you were awake throughout the birth.)

As women, we need to advocate for ourselves in our medical care, whether it is our gynecological, obstetric or general medical care. We need to use our voices and speak up for ourselves to make sure we get the care we need and deserve. Martine Ehrenclou wrote THE TAKE-CHARGE PATIENT: HOW YOU CAN GET THE BEST MEDICAL CARE, which was published in May (Lemon Grove Press, 2012). In her book, Ehrenclou reminds us to be partners in our own care, and to develop a “team” of sorts. Especially when we face a long term or serious diagnosis, or we’re in the process of determining a diagnosis, we need support and assistance from others more than ever.

Having a friend, spouse or family member accompany you may help you speak up. You can be reminded to ask particular questions, and your friend may validate feelings you have about a doctor. More than ever, we need to view physicians and health care providers as members of our health care team, a team for which we are the captains. We need to be able to rely on our care providers like teammates, and they must exhibit the same traits we’d seek in team members: trustworthiness, a mutual respect and the ability to communicate, which is both our ability to communicate with them and their ability to be heard by us.

Ehrenclou reminds readers that when visiting any other professional, we’d have records with us, a description of our situation and be ready participants to the remedy of the situation. She is right. If we seek our accountant for an issue, we bring W-2 forms, 1099s, prior tax returns, receipts and bank statements along with other paperwork. If we see an attorney about an issue, we make sure we also have whatever paperwork might support the case or provide evidence. We’re used to being in control of other situations, and we need to be as active in our healthcare as we are in other areas of life.

In light of all the changes taking place through legislation of health insurance and health care, we must all be aware of and knowledgeable about what is and isn’t covered and what everything costs. Women typically take care of themselves last, and put their family’s needs before their own. We can be good role models to friends, children and our family members by being strong self-advocates in our own health care.