Change.org's Women's Rights Blog

For Health or Money: The Motivation Behind New Mammogram Guidelines

Roxann MtJoy — 2009-11-20T13:40:00-08:00

Women and health care professionals are confused and outraged by the mammogram guidelines released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on Monday, denouncing the task force for prioritizing economy over health.

Regular mammogram screenings have accounted for a 15 percent decrease in the rate of breast cancer. The new guidelines suggest that women start going for regular mammograms at 50 -- ten years later than previously recommended -- and get checked every other year, instead of annually, unless they are at high risk. Critics, such as the American Cancer Society, worry that fewer mammograms will mean a rise in undetected breast cancer, potentially costing women their lives.

Opponents are also concerned that insurance companies will use this as an excuse to refuse to cover mammograms for women under 50. The National Committee for Quality Assurance, a non-profit that grades insurance companies, has already altered its evaluations to reflect the change.

The task force claims that the issue at stake is unnecessary screening and treatment. Women in their forties are 60 percent more likely than older women to have false-positive mammograms; according to Dr. Diana Petitti, vice-chair, this leads to needless medical procedures, such as biopsies, accompanied by high stress. The USPSTF says that the relatively small number of women whose cancer is detected -- only one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women screened from age 40 to 49 -- is not worth the anxiety of all those false-positives.

Perhaps that makes sense ... unless, of course, you happen to be one of those women it would save. What really bothers me here is that the new guidelines seem to be based on the idea that we need to save this country's women from anxiety, rather than substantial medical evidence. It strikes me as harking back to the Victorian era, when medical professionals' number one diagnosis for female patients was hysteria -- an anxiety disorder that, it turned out, doesn't exist.

Why not recommend an increase in education and preparation -- including the realities of false-positives -- rather than a decrease in screening? I imagine prostate exams are no picnic for men, so should we spare them the stress and reduce screening for prostate exams, or do we assume they can handle it because they're men? When it comes to matters of life and death, I think women can handle a little stress.

Photo Credit: Buddhini Ekanayake

Servicewomen Need Access to Plan B: Focus on That, Elaine Donnelly

Brandann Hill-Mann — 2009-11-20T07:25:00-08:00

Groups like the self-proclaimed experts at the Center for Military Readiness, headed by Elaine Donnelly (yes, that Elaine Donnelly), would have you believe that the possibility of unplanned pregnancies is a good reason to exclude women from combat roles and submarine service. I have another idea for Ms. Donnelly and her ilk to help them focus their concerns: Fight like hell to get Plan B included in the TRICARE Formulary (the standard list of drugs that must be stocked) and make it available in all Military Treatment Facilities (MTF).

Right now, a servicewoman cannot walk into an MTF after a sexual assault or a birth control failure and be guaranteed that she will be able to obtain Plan B. Even though it is legal and available over the counter. Even though a military dependent using an MTF can obtain it relatively easily because she is allowed to get over the counter medication there. Even though a dependent who is 17 can walk right into her doctor's office and ask for it. Unfortunately, the decision that made Plan B accessible left enough of a loophole to exclude it from the Formulary, and a victory for most civilian women created a hurdle for servicewomen.

Access to Plan B could help prevent unwanted pregnancies before they start, reducing the already rare need for emergency evacuation of a woman from a combat zone or Naval vessel. However, H.R. 2064, The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act, which would have guaranteed access to emergency contraception, died in Congress before it ever got off the ground. I don't see lobbyists, like the Center for Military Readiness, rallying to get it back on the table. I don't hear people like Elaine Donnelly, who claims to care about respect for women in uniform, changing hand-wringing into action and working to get women things they need, like better birth control on deployment (since TRICARE currently does not cover abortion unless the woman's life is in danger).

A woman facing an unexpected pregnancy while in uniform has few choices. Access to Plan B could give her one more. This seems like a more effective and fiscally responsible solution than hand-wringing and lobbying to keep women out of combat.

I'm just sayin'.

Photo credit: Yankee November on Flickr

Women-Only Travel Company Violates Men's Rights

Sarah Menkedick — 2009-11-19T15:22:00-08:00

At best, women-only policies strike me as band-aid solutions. I see little merit in single-sex gyms, and am downright appalled by the idea of Mexico's women-only taxis -- bubble-gum pink cabs equipped with makeup mirrors -- as a real solution to sexual violence. We can't end sexual harassment and assault simply by carving out spaces where men don't exist. Poof! They're gone! No more worries! Except that eventually you have to leave the gym or get out of the taxi.

So I was automatically skeptical when I heard about the proposal for a women-only travel company, Travel Sisters, geared toward helping women escape men who are only interested in "sexual conquests and partying." But then the story took an unexpected twist.

Founder Erin Maitland applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have Travel Sisters exempted from Australia's Equal Opportunity Act, but was denied on the grounds that she was unfairly stereotyping men and could not prove it was necessary to deny them their human rights.

Wait, what? Human rights? Since when is taking a cheesy Australian packaged tour and flirting with women over piña coladas a basic human right? I would understand using the logic of discrimination, making the case that if this company were allowed an exemption perhaps other proposals for race, age, or gender-based exemptions might emerge. Sure. But the argument that touring is a human right and men will somehow be disadvantaged by not participating in Travel Sisters tours seems farcical.

It gets worse. Instead of driving home the argument that women are unsafe on tours in the company of men, or that women might be searching for a place to escape the distinct pressures associated with men in male-dominated societies, Maitland resorted to the reasoning that these trips would only be about things that interest women anyway. The two things cited: shopping and cooking! In addition, they would make men who were "sending their women off on holiday" happier since "their" women would not be in the presence of other men.

Sounds to me like a solid, progressive measure taken in the name of women's liberation: a women's only shopping/cooking tour created to comfort jealous husbands who don't trust their wives mingling over cocktails with pudgy Hawaiian-shirted tourists.

Meanwhile, Dr. Helen Szoke, the commissioner of VCAT, defended its position by clarifying that since women on these trips are not exerting themselves or wearing "certain attire" there shouldn't be any problems.

"If you think about women's gyms, that's about women exercising, exerting themselves, dressed in certain attire," Szoke said. Yes, just think about women pumping away on the Stairmaster in running shorts and old T-shirts. Danger! But since women don't exert themselves or sport sexy gym wear on their packaged tours, well, it's not the same cup of tea.

The one woman who seems to believe in female empowerment is the owner of another women-only travel company called Adventurous Women, based in Western Australia. Sue Hile sees women-only travel as "empowering," as implied by the name Adventurous Women (as opposed to the wimpy "Travel Sisters"), and founded the company as a response to "losing [her] soul as a wife and a mum."

This rhetoric goes much further in convincing me of the validity of a women-only travel company -- and yet, couldn't a travel company run by women be marketed towards women, with values and interests that appeal to women, without having to legally exclude men? After all, wouldn't drawing up itineraries with scary terms like "feminism" and "female bonding," and strictly forbidding any sort of harassment, go a long way towards eliminating unwanted male attention?

At the least, let's make sure women-only policies aren't themselves founded on sexist stereotypes of women. Hold the shopping and cooking -- who's up for some rock-climbing?

Photo Credit: honey-bee's Flickr photostream.

UN Operations In Congo: A Dangerous Strategy

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-19T12:06:00-08:00

Compared with the energy and awareness surrounding the genocide in Darfur, the crisis in Congo is often known as the "forgotten conflict" -- despite the fact that over five million people have been killed since the war began 1998.

After a brief flurry of headlines last year, the crisis has received little media attention. Meanwhile, the situation in Congo has only grown worse, especially for women and girls, who are the victims of mass rapes and mutilation.

This December, the United Nations will be renewing its mandate of the peacekeeping force in Congo -- a joint Rwandan and Congolese military operation -- with the aim of disarming the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebel militia by force. A 6,000-strong armed group, the FDLR has been a key ingredient of instability in the Kivu provinces ever since its founders fled Rwanda in the wake of the 1994 genocide. Some 30 percent of the FDLR's forces are now Congolese.

Unfortunately, efforts by the joint force (known by its French acronym, MONUC) are reportedly doing more harm than good. Not only are the rebels attacking civilians, the poorly disciplined Congolese army is looting villages and raping women.

In spite of this, an IRIN article reports that MONUC intends to press ahead with the operation, codenamed Kimia II.

Despite claims that it is focused on protecting civilians, the UN is clearly putting its peacekeepers in a situation where they are supporting an army that is attacking its own population, and contributing to a massive humanitarian catastrophe.

Eighty-four humanitarian and human rights groups have teamed up to form the Congo Advocacy Coalition, which is speaking out against the UN decision to move ahead with Kimia II. In a bleak calculation by this coalition, for every rebel combatant disarmed during the operation:

One civilian has been killed

Seven women and girls have been raped

Six houses burned and destroyed

900,000 people have been forced to flee their homes

Additionally, Oxfam International has reported that sexual violence has grown even more brutal in areas affected by the Kimia II operation.

"We're seeing more cases of mutilation, extreme violence, and torture in sexual violence cases against women and girls, and many more of the victims are children," said Immaculée Birhaheka of Promotion et Appui aux Initiatives Féminines (PAIF).

Oxfam and other organizations are calling for the international community to stop backing the UN strategy. Sign their global petition here on Change.org to demand that the UN stops supporting the Kimia II operation in East Congo.

You can learn more by watching this film:

Photo credit: Oxfam International

Newsweek's "Sexist" Cover Photo Stirs Up False Controversy

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-18T16:50:00-08:00

The internet has been growling a lot today. And most of the disgruntled tweets and blog posts are over Newsweek's cover, featuring none other than former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. To coincide with the release of Palin's book, Going Rogue, Newsweek's editors decided to print two essays about the former vice presidential candidate and a photo from a shoot she participated in for Runner's World magazine.

The most common critique is that Newsweek has committed the crime of sexism in order to sell magazines. In defense of the image, Newsweek's Editor Jon Meacham said the image chosen was "the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do." He went onto say: "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."

I wouldn't say this is entirely gender neutral, not to mention Meacham's response is rather misleading (you did this for marketing, not editorial, duh), but I don't actually think Newsweek is being sexist with this photo.

I've written about how the media unfairly portrayed Palin during the 2008 election and how she was used as a prop by the McCain campaign to try and snag a few extra female voters last November. She has been the living, breathing example of everything that is simultaneously wrong with politics and the media for women -- a role I do not envy, in the least.

But let's get real for a second. If Washingtonian can get away with a shirtless photo of President Obama, it is no wonder that Newsweek thought that this photo of Palin in her running shorts was fair game. Particularly because it already ran in another publication.

The Washingtonian cover is far more appalling, in my opinion, because it sexualizes a sitting President as nothing more than a Hawaiian surfer boy.

Palin, however, is an ex-governor who just published a tell-all, gossipy memoir, which shoves a cream pie in the face of several major politicians, the media, and many others (for an index of Palin's book, see Seyward Darby's handiwork here). I don't feel sorry about a photo that she posed for showing up on a magazine cover if the biggest gripe is that her shorts are a little "too" short.

Excuse me, but when did we all become Catholic school nuns with a ruler against our thighs? If she was wearing a French Maid costume I might object, but some Asics, black shorts, and a red sweatshirt? No.

Personally, I am not going to push back on this one. I don't think Newsweek has stripped Palin of her dignity with this photo. She did that to herself a long time ago when she pledged to implement abstinence-only education while her daughter was getting pregnant by a future Playgirl model (among other policy positions I object to).

Sexism is an ugly, pervasive, and serious issue. However, we can't cry "sexism" every time a woman of influence is put into the media spotlight, or this significant word will lose all of its meaning.

Photo credit: Newsweek

Will You Have To Ask Your Employer For The "Abortion Rider"?

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-17T15:30:00-08:00

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) held a press conference yesterday with several of New York City's top women leaders to speak out against the House health care bill's anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment.

Powerful women such as Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Gloria Steinem, Speaker of the NY City Council Christine Quinn, President of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards, President of NARAL Pro-Choice NY Kelli Conlin, and many others spoke against the Stupak measure, which is one of the greatest attempts to roll back women's reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

For those who are unclear on what the Stupak-Pitts amendment means, basically the measure would prohibit the proposed government-run insurance plan from covering abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the woman's life. It also bars any health plan receiving federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage; if women wanted to purchase abortion coverage through such plans, they'd have to buy it separately, as a so-called "rider" on their policy.

While this "abortion rider" is being touted as a solution to the prohibitive measures, Sen. Gillibrand said that the rider "is not only discriminatory, but ridiculous. It would require women to essentially plan for an event that occurs in the most unplanned and sometimes emergency situations."

Cecile Richards said that many House members are already having "buyers remorse" about the Stupak amendment--it has been reported that many didn't realize just how radical it was when they voted. Gloria Steinem warned that Stupak, if passed, could take us back to the "pre-Roe v. Wade era," while Kelli Conlin described how a woman's right to privacy will be ruined when she is forced to walk into her employer's HR department to request the abortion rider.

Lillian Rodríguez López, the President of the Hispanic Federation, spoke out for the first time about her own experience with abortion at age 17 and compared the right to reproductive health to the right to bear arms, saying that with both rights, the citizens of the United States are asked to "only use when necessary."

Abortion, however, is one of the most common medical procedures in the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, thirty-five per cent of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they are forty-five.

The press conference came at the heels of a petition sporting over 72,000 signatures that NARAL delivered to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday, calling on him to resist pressure from anti-choice groups in the Senate version of the health care bill. More than 43,000 of the signatures came from stopabortionban.org, a web site NARAL Pro-Choice America established last week.

Rachel Maddow reports that Reid will unveil the Senate version this week and, despite Republican efforts to slow down the process in order to give interest groups time to organize, wants to begin debate on the bill before Thanksgiving. While Sen. Gillibrand stated at the press conference that she believes the Stupak language will not end up in the final version of the Senate bill, it is not clear yet what will be included and if any abortion language would effectively kill the health care bill in the Senate.

If Stupak is left out of the Senate version, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has already said that he plans to introduce a similar amendment. In addition, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told Politics Daily that he also wants to see stronger language restricting federal funding for abortion services than exists in the committee-passed bills.

It should be stated over and over again that it would become incredibly difficult to remove anti-choice language during conference committee if it has already been passed by both the House and Senate. Therefore, no w is the time to contact your Senator and let them know how you feel about the Stupak amendment as well as any anti-abortion language in the final version of the Senate Health Care Bill.

Photo credit: New York Daily News

Does Your University Health Care Plan Cover Birth Control?

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-16T12:45:00-08:00

Last Friday I received this letter (after the jump) from a young woman at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania who recently found out that her student health insurance, Consolidated Health Plans, does NOT cover birth control. This same insurance broker arranges coverage for 60 other colleges in the upper Northeast, including schools such as Brown, The New School, and Sarah Lawrence college, among others.

Take a look at the letter that this college student sent to her university administration about the policy and make sure you read the fine print in your own student health insurance plan. You can see the offending part of the Lehigh plan in this PDF, under Exclusions and Limitations, which says "No benefits will be paid for loss or expense caused by, contributed to, or resulting from: 16. Reproductive/infertility services including but limited to: birth control; family planning; fertility test; infertility (male or female), including any services or supplies rendered for the purpose or with the intent of inducing conception."

You too may need to contact your administration and student health insurance broker to protest similar restricitions.

(It should be noted that condoms, however, are issued for free at Lehigh College. So boys can use birth control, but girls can't?)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Subject: University Health Plans and women's reproductive rights

Dear Ms. Stewart,

I have just become aware of an indefensible stance taken by our very own Consolidated Health Plans, the broker for student insurance on campus: the student policy covers prescriptions EXCEPT for birth control. This surely cannot be a moral statement by the broker, because the very same policy pays for elective abortions. The decision not to pay for birth control on a university campus increases the risk of unwanted pregnancies, and thus increases the risk of more invasive procedures, like abortions. I am certain that this callous disregard for college students' reproductive options flourishes only because more people aren't aware of it--if they were, the public pressure would force a change in policy. But it gets worse. Let's face it: the average Lehigh undergraduate student comes from a family that is financially comfortable, if not well-off. And these parents with stable employment also have insurance policies that cover their daughters until age 21-25. Because of this, most of the undergraduates whose parents might be able to influence a policy change don't actually buy the policy. Who does buy the policy then? The relatively few undergraduate students whose parents are unemployed or self-employed, and grad students as well as undergrads who are too old for their parents' insurance benefits. Keep in mind that graduate assistant stipends often place grad students dangerously near the poverty guidelines, and that younger students whose parents are unemployed or otherwise suffering from the ongoing recession may not be able to count on help from home. So these two classes of students are both most likely to buy the insurance, and also most likely to need assistance with basic expenses like birth control, with can be cost-prohibitive for someone living paycheck to paycheck.

~ Brooke

Photo credit: NateOne Flickr

Do You Know What a Feminist Man Looks Like?

Alex DiBranco — 2009-11-16T11:18:00-08:00

If you take the homophobia and misogyny out of masculinity, what's left? This is the question Courtney E. Martin poses in her recent American Prospect article, "What's the Alternative to Tucker Max?"

Reporting on the National Conference for Campus-Based Men's Gender Equality and Anti-Violence Groups, which took place on November 6-7, Martin watched in concern as one of the event's organizers covered a chalkboard with suggestions from the audience: Machismo. Violent. Homophobic. The gender-conscious young male attendees, at the forefront of a new gender justice movement, were well-versed in the negative characteristics equated with masculinity. But where was the companion list of positive characteristics that men should live up to?

"This generation is saying no to toxic masculinity," Martin writes. "But what are these young men saying yes to?"

As their growing gender consciousness inspires them to form praiseworthy groups like "Men Can Stop Rape," these young men are themselves at risk because they lack "a clear picture of what they want to build" to replace traditional macho, heteronormative masculinity. Martin worries that, overwhelmed by gender-guilt and without a positive model to strive for, these men will quickly become paralyzed or burnt out, depriving the women's rights movement of much needed allies. Unfortunately, there's little agreement on what the framework for that positive model could be; one conference attendee even argued against any construction of a "feminist masculinity," citing concerns that this would become "one more box that young men felt they had to fit into."

Of course, this is the same kind of argument I often hear from young women who, despite fully supporting gender equality, don't want to be "labeled" as a feminist. Which makes me wonder: Do men really lack an alternative to "toxic masculinity"? Or is it just that even these gender-conscious youths still have trouble fully identifying themselves as feminist--balking, like too many women's rights supporters, from a conception of themselves that should be empowering? Moreover, the concept of a "feminist masculinity" seems unnecessary, and if anything detrimental, to the goal of combating sexism and homophobia in that it continues to present men and their "masculinity" in opposition to women. What if everyone just worked toward being a decent (feminist) person?

In any case, Martin ends on a note that rings true: "Fighting against the world that we don't want is a critical first step, but fighting for the world that we do want is where liberation truly begins."

Photo credit: wwu.admissions' Flickr photostream

Rape Isn't the Only Thing Happening to Women in Uniform

Brandann Hill-Mann — 2009-11-16T07:32:00-08:00

Hold on -- that headline is a tad misleading. It implies that the only things I want to talk about are happening to women in uniform. Things aren't just happening to women in uniform. Things, amazing and groundbreaking things, are being done by women in uniform. That is worth some air time.

Unfortunately, the intersection of feminism and the military receives limited coverage in womanist/feminist circles unless the discussion centers around rape. Don't misunderstand me: Rape is a serious issue in the Armed Forces. In weekly posts to come, I fully intend to discuss military rape and sexual assault, the ways it is being addressed (or not) by Upper Brass, how awareness is being raised, and the effectiveness of training geared toward preventing assault. Yet if we, as feminists/womanists, feminist allies, and other women's rights advocates, focus only on rape and sexual assault, then we are dismissing the positive experiences and achievements made by women every day.

And, believe me, there is plenty to talk about.

Today, almost one in four military personnel are female, a number that will continue to increase over time. This was the goal of recruiters when I was in boot camp several years ago; every day I wore my uniform, I heard that we were working towards that goal. Though the fact that women make up barely six percent of the upper ranks, that in 2008 there were only 57 female Generals and Admirals, might seem discouraging, keep in mind that those values represent more than double last decade's numbers. When I enlisted, women could do any job in the Navy except be SEALs and submariners, but even that is changing.

The military is evolving, making way for women to smash brass ceilings. While plenty remains to critique (and I certainly plan to critique it), there is much to commend and acknowledge. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the women who are steadily infiltrating and rising to the top of what we have always known as a culture of masculinity. Though the playing field that Uncle Sam has lead us on to is far from level, there are women out there (dare I say change makers) well worth holding up to the spotlight.

Photo credit: The U.S. Army's Flickr photostream

The American Myth of Women's Equality

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-15T08:11:00-08:00

The White House Project released a report on Friday that dispels what seems to be an American myth about women's equality by offering 132 pages of benchmarks to truthfully describe where women stand in a variety of sectors.

The report describes how "much of the general public believes that women's fight for parity in the workplace has already been won" but goes on to say that women are still noticeably absent from the boardrooms and the executive suites. Due to the economic slowdown, it has made it harder for everyone to move ahead, and women's progress up the ladder and through the glass ceiling is seemingly stalled.

As we know, today women account for only 18 percent of our top leaders and make 78.7 cents to every dollar earned by a man, which is a wage gap that increases with age. Here are additional benchmarks presented in the report:

In business, among Fortune 500 companies, women constitute only 3 percent of the CEOs, 6 percent of the top paying positions, and 16 percent of the corporate officers.

In film, women constitute 16 percent of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers; this represents a slight decrease in their representation in these positions in the last decade.

In journalism, women of color account for less than 17 percent of female news staff, and only 6 percent of newsroom staff overall.

In law, despite being nearly half (48 percent) of law school graduates, women make up only 18 percent of law partners and only one in four judges.

In the military, women make up 11 percent of the officers in the top five officer categories today and 15 percent of all military officers.

In nonprofits, women CEOs of nonprofits have been losing ground relative to men in terms of salaries: female CEOs now make only 66 percent of male salaries, compared with 71 percent in 2000.

In state politics, there are only six women governors, and women comprise only 15 percent of mayors of cities with populations of over 100,000.

However, despite all this, a recent GFK Roper poll indicates that a majority of Americans are comfortable with women as top leaders in all sectors, from academia and business to media and the military.

So what exactly is holding us back from achieving the success and status we deserve?

My answer to that question is time and a concerted effort by organizations to create change. I do believe that the younger generation is growing up with more access, aspirations, and ambition to get to the top and many don't feel born and bred into discrimination as women did in the past. However, as Colonel Michaelene Kloster said during the White House Project press conference on Friday, "You have to believe in yourself and don't stop. Too many women stop."

The report also describes six methods for organizations that are interested closing the leadership gap:

Work to achieve a critical mass of women in leadership roles in every sector. A critical mass of one-third or more women in leadership positions is essential.

Use financial resources strategically. In choosing which goods or services to purchase and which non-profits to fund, look through a gender lens which considers the representation of women, and women of color, on the board and in top leadership.

Amplify women's voices in the public arena. Prominently include women leaders in public forums and media so that they in particular -- and women in general -- are recognized as role models and considered for boards and other top-level positions.

Collect and analyze the data. Surprisingly little information exists across sectors regarding the representation of women, and particularly women of color, in positions of leadership.

Regular tracking and reviewing of the numbers -- including the wage gap -- are essential for setting benchmarks and monitoring progress.

Maintain accountability through setting targets. These targets should be specific in order to monitor genuine progress.

Improve flexibility in workplace structures. for women and men alike, increased flexibility -- including an acceptance of the need for work-life balance -- promotes career satisfaction and job retention.

What would your solution be when it comes to closing the leadership gap in these sectors? Do you feel like women are missing from leadership roles at your company?

Photo credit: The White House Project on Flickr

Friday Femme Fatale: Bishops, Ann Kuster & Global Gag Rule

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-13T21:52:00-08:00

It is with regret that I must say this is the last Friday Femme Fatale I'll be doing here at Change.org for awhile. We're adding some new voices to the blog in the next few weeks, so hopefully we will be able to cover as much as we do in these weekly wrap up posts all the same. Be on the look out for additional writing from new authors here on the site. I'll still be here as the editor, so don't worry too much.

After this week, there has been a lot of news about the Stupak amendment and what it means, which we have already written about here on Change.org, but below you will find links explaining more about it and other stories you may have missed in the fem-o-sphere:

Catholic Church Emerges as Key Player in Legislative Battle (Wall St. Journal)

Stupak On The Stupak Amendment (The Atlantic)

The Bishops' Huge Financial Stake in Stupak-Pitts (RH Reality Check)

Hooking up for sex: Sluts or New Feminists? (ABC.com)

Military Sexual Trauma - Seeking Justice (Huffington Post)

Trading Women's Rights for Political Power (New York Times)

Republicans Far Behind on Women Legislators (FiveThirtyEight)

The Democrats' Dilemma: Their Own Trojan Horse Kicks Free (WomensMediaCenter)

Is Ann Kuster a Uniquely Unifying Candidate? (Blue Hampshire)

Why the Stupak Amendment to the Healthcare Reform Bill Is Unconstitutional (Find Law)

Pathfinder Calls for Permanent Repeal of the Global Gag Rule (Pathfinder International)

Have a great weekend!

Photo credit: Finizio on Flickr

Low Income Women Can't Get Abortions, But RNC Staffers Can

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-12T20:05:00-08:00

It is pretty obvious by now that Republicans don't want you to be able to have an abortion. Republicans don't want government funds to be used to cover a legal medical procedure that "kills babies" despite the fact that they support the death penalty and federal funding for psychotherapy for pedophile priests.

Oh but wait - hold on - while they don't want you to have an abortion, it is okay if they have one. 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats in the House voted on the Stupak Amendment last Saturday - the most prohibitive legislative measure against abortion introduced since the Hyde Amendment - which basically blocks access for low-income women to an abortion, despite the fact that staffers of the Republican National Committee have had abortion covered under their insurance plan since at least 1991.

From Politico, the GOP is once again, the party of ultimate moral hypocrisy:

The Republican National Committee's health insurance plan covers elective abortion - a procedure the party's own platform calls "a fundamental assault on innocent human life."

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC's policy covers elective abortion.

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele - and suggested that it may be short-lived.

So tell me again - how is it acceptable for a political party to lobby against a policy they themselves employ?

Photo: Trueslant

Must Read: GirlDrive

Dorothee Royal-Hedinger — 2009-11-12T11:20:00-08:00

Have you ever had the urge to grab your best friend and take a road trip across America? That's exactly what long-time friends Emma Bee Bernstein and Nona Willis Aronowitz did when they embarked on their GirlDrive project. But instead of a joyride, their road trip proved to be an extraordinary adventure in which they interviewed and photographed young women across the country, finding out what is important to them and what they think and feel about feminism.

Two years and many miles later, the long-awaited GirlDrive book (published by Seal Press) is now on the shelves. The book, which includes a gorgeous mix of photos, essays, interviews, and diary entries from their trip, is a tribute to the diversity and strength of women across the country.

From a screenwriter in LA to a burlesque star in Austin, a young mother in Madison to an artist in New York City, we view honest assessments of how these women see their place in society and get an intimate look into their struggles, hopes and fears.

Though it's hard to write about GirlDrive without mentioning the tragedy of Emma's death earlier this year, I think this book should be read and remembered as a powerful and ultimately optimistic exploration of gender politics. Even as the women profiled don't agree on how they define themselves or what feminism means to their generation, the book serves as a mosaic of beauty that speaks as a whole about being a woman in America.

For more about the project, check out the interview I did with Emma and Nona exactly one year ago for this blog. You can get your copy of GirlDrive book here and follow Nona on Twitter @GirlDrive.

Barriers To Justice For Rape Survivors in Sudan

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-11T19:04:00-08:00

This past weekend I attended and spoke at the Pledge 2 Protect Conference in Washington, DC, which served to organize and educate young people about the realities of genocide around the world. One of the panels I attended was called "Wars Against Women and the Pursuit of Peace: The Case of Darfur" which outlined, among other things, the incredibly unjust system in Sudan for rape survivors.

Despite the fact that rape has now been determined a "crime against humanity" and a "war crime" by The Hague, there is a complete inability for the Sudanese to deal with rape and domestic violence on a domestic level.

Just so we all understand how difficult a situation it is for women in Sudan, here are a few of the barriers to justice they face if raped:

In Sudan, as in many countries, it is considered a social taboo to report rape.

Often, male leaders will say to women who come forward that "You can't report this."

There is very little trust in police and often they can be perpetrators of rape as well.

There often isn't accessible transportation to get to justice. If the crime happens in a village and a hospital or police station is far away, it could take days to get to the proper authorities.

And again, the police often aren't helpful and instead they will harass and intimidate survivors.

Rape survivors need to present a medical evidence form filled out by a doctor to a court in order for a rape to be considered legitimate. However, they have to get this form from police, which as you read above, can be the perpetrators. Women often can't get the form, or the doctor doesn't properly fill it out and therefore the court will toss the case out.

Legal immunity protects anyone who works in government from prosecution. In order to investigate a government official, you have to request an exemption from immunity from the government. Often, the prosecutors never hear back from the government once this request is submitted.

Perhaps the most problematic issue I see is that rape is connected to the laws against adultery in Sudan. In order to be accused of adultery, it takes the four men to serve as witnesses. So guess what happens? Instead of getting justice for being raped, often the women are accused as adulterers. Additionally, if a girl is pregnant from the rape of another man and she is married, it is also considered adultery. And the punishment for adultery is none other, but death.

Finally, the government of Sudan has pursued a policy of complete denial when it comes to the mass rape in the country. Just last year, Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir said on camera that "It is not in Sudanese culture to rape" and that "no mass rape has occurred." It has been well documented that mass rape is used as weapon of war in the genocide that continues to occur in Darfur.

I know these realities are difficult to read, but we cannot be ignorant to the incredible injustice happening on our planet. And rape is not the only atrocity happening in Darfur, but it is one that is severely affecting the female population there.

I will say that there is hope. After realizing that 80% of the STAND participants are young women in high school and college, I do believe that someday the situations like those in Sudan will cease to exist and real accountable leadership will take over.

Teach justice young.

Photo: hdptcar on Flickr

Veterans Day: No Longer Just A "Man's Holiday"

Danine Spencer — 2009-11-11T12:26:00-08:00

Today is Veterans' Day in the United States, a day when we pause to recognize those who have served in our nation's armed services. Veterans' Day is traditionally a man's holiday, where we honor the men who have fought and died in our nation's wars. However, the number of female veterans has doubled over the last twenty years, from 4% in 1988 to 8% this year. This number will only continue to grow as our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan continues.

It is important to pay tribute to all veterans, including female veterans. According to the IAVA, more than 212, 000 female service members have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, making up 11% of the force over there. More than 600 have been wounded in the combined wars and more than 120 women have died, including Staff Sgt. Amy C. Tirador of Albany, New York, who died November 4 in Kirkush, Iraq.

While we honor the sacrifices of veterans and their families, this is also an opportunity to examine our national priorities. According to a Congressional Research Service report, we have spent $944 billion on the global war on terror since 2001 (as of the end of FY2009). $683 billion (72%) was spent on Iraq alone.

$683 billion dollars for what was arguably a war of choice. Imagine what we could do with that money:

We could begin to care for our veterans and their families better. With a relatively tiny price tag of $3.7 billion over the next five years, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009 (S. 1963) will provide much needed enhancements in health care for female veterans, include support for family caregivers, expand mental health services, improve care for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and add vitally needed services for homeless veterans.

We could also begin to address the needs of our female veterans, including appropriate facilities, staffing and services at all VA clinics and hospitals. CRS estimates that less than $9.44 billion (less than 1% of the war bill) was spent on medical care for all veterans over the last eight years. S.1963 includes long-overdue provisions for women's health.

Finally, we could begin to better care for the health of all Americans. $683 billion would pay for half to three-fourths of the House health care bill's estimated $894 billion-$1.2 trillion price tag

As we honor our veterans today, I will personally remember the 4,365 American soldiers who have died and at least 31,557 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq alone. I am grateful and humbled by their service and unbelievable courage. I hope President Obama and his advisers will remember each of these men and women as they decide how many troops to send to Afghanistan.

Photo credit: kevindooley on Flickr

AIDS Becomes Leading Cause of Death for Young Women

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-10T13:39:00-08:00

According to a recent study from the World Health Organization, the AIDS virus is the leading cause of death and disease among women between the ages of 15 and 44.

Throughout the world, one in five deaths among women in this age group is linked to unsafe sex, according to the U.N. agency.

This is certainly depressing news as we already know that more and more women are disappearing each year by the millions.

For those who are unfamiliar with the plight of HIV/AIDS among women, here are a few facts from the WHO:

Globally, 50% of all people living with HIV are women.

In sub-Saharan Africa, young women (15-24) are three to six times more likely to be infected than men in the same age group.

In some Asian countries, e.g. Cambodia and India, women are increasingly infected with HIV within the context of marriage.

Access to ARV therapy quadrupled from 7% in 2003 to 31% in 2007. In many countries, women have access to treatment in proportion to their expected need.

Although in most parts of the world women live longer than men, AIDS has driven women's life expectancy below that of men in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The WHO points to several key factors for the increase of this epidemic among young women:

Gender Inequality: Gender norms related to masculinity can encourage men to have more sexual partners and older men to have sexual relations with much younger women. In some settings, this contributes to higher infection rates among young women (15-24 years) compared to young men. Norms related to masculinity, i.e. homophobia, stigmatizes men having sex with men, and makes them and their partners vulnerable to HIV. Norms related to femininity can prevent women - especially young women - from accessing HIV information and services. Only 38% of young women have accurate, comprehensive knowledge of HIV/AIDS according to the 2008 UNAIDS global figures.

Violence against women (physical, sexual and emotional), which is experienced by 10 to 60% of women (ages 15-49 years) worldwide, increases their vulnerability to HIV. Forced sex can contribute to HIV transmission due to tears and lacerations resulting from the use of force. Gender-related barriers in access to services prevent women and men from accessing HIV prevention, treatment and care.

Barriers to understanding HIV: Women may face barriers due to their lack of access to and control over resources, child-care responsibilities, restricted mobility and limited decision-making power. Women assume the major share of care-giving in the family, including for those living with and affected by HIV. This is often unpaid and is based on the assumption that women "naturally" fill this role. Lack of education and economic security affects millions of women and girls, whose literacy levels are generally lower than men and boys'.

Stigmatization of Women with HIV: Many women, especially those living with HIV, lose their homes, inheritance, possessions, livelihoods and even their children when their partners die.

Many national HIV/AIDS programs fail to address underlying gender inequalities. In 2008, only 52% of countries who reported to the UN General Assembly included specific, budgeted support for women-focused HIV/AIDS programs. The WHO is providing a new tool to help health-care providers in the public and private sectors integrate gender into HIV/AIDS programs they wish to set up, implement and evaluate so they are more responsive to women's needs.

The Associated Press shares more information from the report.

Photo credit: lynnefeatherstone on Flickr

Health Care Passed in House, Women Used As Political Poker Chip

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-09T08:22:00-08:00

I don't know about you, but today I have a health care hangover. After the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care Act this weekend, which include the vitriolic Stupak-Pitts amendment, my emotional and mental well has been completely drained.

While the 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the bill, the battles that occurred on Saturday offered a sobering reality of just how far we have to go before women are considered as more than a political poker chip.

But before I go on about how reproductive choice is seriously threatened by the Stupak-Pitts amendment, let's go over the positive parts of the bill that were passed on Saturday night:

Lower taxes for gay couples who receive health benefits from employers.

Nutrition labeling requirements for snack food sold in vending machines and many restaurants.

A new program to teach parents how to interact with their children.

The House legislation would require most Americans to obtain health insurance or face penalties.

Most employers would have to provide coverage or pay a tax penalty of up to 8 percent of their payroll.

The bill would significantly expand Medicaid and would offer subsidies to help moderate-income people buy insurance from private companies or from a government insurance plan.

It would set up a national insurance exchange where people could shop for coverage.

While these provisions certainly make me happy that we are doing something to reform America's "sickcare" system, I am ultimately disturbed that it was passed at the expense of women's access to reproductive health.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Stupak-Pitts amendment here is a quick summary. As it stands, the amendment says that anyone who gets a federal subsidy to buy health insurance cannot buy a plan that covers abortion. What this means is that when the uninsured do buy into insurance, there will no longer be any plans that cover the legal medical procedure. But it gets worse. Since the plan for the uninsured is designed to open up to everyone over time, including large employers, it is likely that women will lose access to abortion coverage as part of any health insurance plan available for purchase.

Presently, more than 87 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services, but this amendment marks "a radical departure from the status quo" as Nancy Keenan said in a press release for people who pay for their own health insurance.

Hopefully it is clear by now that this amendment explicitly targets low-income women. If the Senate does not strip the bill of this amendment, it is likely that all women will have to pay out-of-pocket for an abortion, regardless of the circumstances - rape, incest, or otherwise. If you can't pay for the procedure, then you will have effectively lost your right to choose and the demographic of single mothers below the poverty line will inevitably increase.

So - who do we blame for this disaster? Unfortunately, it is the party that is supposed to be the greatest ally for women: the Democrats.

On Daily Kos, a list of the Democrats all those who voted "Yes" on the amendment, which passed 240 to 194, with one present vote. Below is a list of the Democrats who not only voted for Stupak-Pitts, but also against the Affordable Health Care Act as well:

Jason Altmire; John Barrow; John Boccieri; Dan Boren; Bobby Bright; Ben Chandler; Travis Childers; Artur Davis; Lincoln Davis; Bart Gordon; Parker Griffith; Tim Holden; Jim Marshall; Jim Matheson; Mike McIntyre; Charles Melancon; Collin Peterson; Mike Ross; Heath Shuler; Ike Skelton; John Tanner; Gene Taylor; Harry Teague.

And a visual graphic from The New York Times about the overall party split on the bill:

The Times also describes the shallow maneuvering by these Democrats, which basically says that negotiated women's rights so they could try and keep their seat:

An overwhelming majority of the Democratic lawmakers who opposed the bill — 31 of the 39 — represent districts that were won by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, in the 2008 presidential election, and a third of them were freshmen. Nearly all of the fourteen freshmen Democrats who voted “no” represent districts that were previously Republican and are considered vulnerable in 2010.

If anyone reading this has voted or donated to one of these Democrats, it is time to look for a new progressive candidate to challenge them in 2010.

Going forward, we can only hope the Senate makes the right moves and strips the final bill of this horrific amendment. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand expressed her position immediately after the House passed it's version:

Alternet has said that this passage was all part of the plan and "Pelosi's calculus in allowing the Stupak amendment seems to be the unlikelihood that it will survive in the conference committee that will reconcile the House bill with whatever the Senate eventually passes and calls health-care reform."

I certainly hope this was all part of a larger plan, Pelosi. Because if not, the legacy of passing health care reform will be tainted by throwing 50 percent of the United States population under the bus.

Photo credits: New York Times, Twitter, Speaker Pelosi's Flickr Stream

Update: Yoani Sánchez Detained & Beaten

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-07T08:10:00-08:00

Yoani Sánchez, the 34-year-old Cuban blogger who was not allowed to leave Cuba and go to the United States to receive the Maria Moors Cabot Prize, was detained and beaten by Cuban state security yesterday.

"No blood, but black and blues, punches, pulled hairs, blows to the head, kidneys, knee and chest,'' Sánchez told El Nuevo Herald. "In sum, professional violence.''

According to Reuters, Sánchez said that she and two fellow bloggers were detained briefly on Friday by security agents and accused of being "counter-revolutionaries" as they walked to a demonstration against violence. This video captures the peaceful demonstration from that day.

In the past, it has been reported that the Cuban government does not hide its distaste for Sanchez, who is occasionally attacked in the government-run press as an enemy of the state. Currently, Cuba is said to have about 200 political prisoners, whom the government views as traitors working with the United States to toppled the Cuban government.

Demonstrating that she will not be silenced by the Cuban government's attacks, however, Sánchez has already written about the incident on her blog Generación Y. In her post she describes how she and her friend, Claudia Cadelo, were accosted by men driving a black car and then detained by the state police while being physically and verbally abused. Her blog receives more than 14 million page views a month and thousands of comments.

Additionally, a lot of the initial coverage about the incident came from Twitter where Sánchez and her friend Cadelo tweeted about being detained by the police and soon conversation spread quickly about what was happening. Individuals are expressing their support for the two women using the hashtag #yoani on Twitter to discuss the incident.

It is clear that while Sánchez has a huge following around the world, neither Cubans nor the government appreciate her internet presence. This recent post, which has been translated into English, demonstrates some of the attitudes in Cuba toward free speech:

"What do you do?" he asks me under the streetlights of Belascoain Street. I'm a blogger, I warn him, and the lights of Carlos III Avenue show me his suspicious and fearful face. "Look, don't go and tell what I just said," he says, changing the indulgent tone he used when picking me up amid the gloom. "I don't want you to publish later some nonsense about me on the Internet," he clarifies, while grabbing his crotch in a gesture of power. My straight hair is no longer a reason to trust me, now my eyes don't seem so almond-shaped, and when I explain-through my narrow lips-the subjects I deal with in my blog, it's as if I am threatening him, razor in hand, a dangerous criminal. I confirm, then, that his spectrum of classification stigmatizes not only some shades of color, but also certain leanings of opinion, those tones which are not carried on the epidermis but that also lead, on this Island, to displays of segregation and rejection.

Roots of Hope in Miami has already spoken out against the incident and is calling "on Cuban authorities to immediately cease all acts of violence against civil society youth leaders." It is my hope that there are no more acts of censorship or violence toward Sánchez and that she is able to continue writing about her views of the Cuban government.

Photo credit: Jk1982's Weblog

Friday Femme Fatale: Social Media, Book Lists & Beth Ditto

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-06T11:22:00-08:00

This weekend I am taking a reprieve from the bright lights of New York City and heading to Washington, DC for a few days to do some speaking at the Pledge2Protect conference and visit old friends.

Additionally, for those who wonder what I do over at my full-time gig, Air America Media, I just published this column today in SmartBrief titled: Can social media save the radio star?

I hope you all are gearing up for some rest and relaxation this weekend as well, but before you unplug completely check out the stories you may have missed in the world of women's rights:

Social Media Salary Report: Ladies, It's Not Pretty (Social Media Today)

No. 1 Omission From Top 10 Book List: Women (New York Times)

Jewish Women Lag Behind Men in Promotion and Pay (Jewish Daily Forward)

At the UN, Criminalizing Rape as a Weapon (Women's Media Center)

No More Women's Unhealthy Healthcare (Feminist Peace Network)

Beyond Breast Cancer: "Awareness" Must Extend to Other Women's Cancers (RH Reality Check)

Beth Ditto On Punk, High Heels And Breaking All Fashion's Rules (Air America Media)

The day-care dilemma (Market Watch)

Photo Credit: Air America

Female Bloggers Noticeably Absent From Technorati Survey

Jen Nedeau — 2009-11-05T13:49:00-08:00

Earlier this fall, Technorati published a survey called the "2009 State of the Blogosphere." Some of the findings are interesting such as the idea that "Despite being perceived by some as enemies of the traditional media, bloggers actually carry a journalistic pedigree."

I was trained as a journalist and pursued that passion until I realized that there weren't many jobs left in print reporting. Now I'm a blogger and a new media director. Not surprising that I ended up in the communications field, but what is surprising about this survey are the statistics about gender:

Two-thirds are male

60% are 18-44

The majority are more affluent and educated than the general population

75% have college degrees

40% have graduate degrees

One in three has an annual household income of $75K+

One in four has an annual household income of $100K+

Professional and self-employed bloggers are more affluent: nearly half have an annual household income of $75,000 and one third topped the $100,000 level

More than half are married

More than half are parents

Half are employed full time, however ¾ of professional bloggers are employed full time.

At first glance, it appears that the Technorati methodology failed to include enough women respondents. It seems absolutely erroneous that they only found 1/3 of bloggers are female.

Did they somehow miss the vast network of feminist and "mommy" blogs out there? Or the 1000+ attendance at Blogher?

Marian Wang at Mother Jones takes note of the same results and predicts that the lack of diversity (real or perceived) will only hurt the future of journalism and blogging as a whole:

That's a worse gender imbalance than in American newsrooms, which is saying something. (Mother Jones is a rare exception-by my quick calculation, our editorial department is 61 percent female, but that's hardly the case everywhere.) Women represent only 37 percent of American newspaper staffers, according the American Society of News Editors. And if newspapers are doomed and blogs are to take their place, then this can't be good for the supposed diversity of voices we're getting online.

Here's the methodology from Technorati so you can decide for yourself. Do you think Technorati's statistics are wrong about female bloggers?

Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, conducted an Internet survey from September 4-23, 2009 among 2,828 bloggers nationwide. The margin of error for the survey is +/- 1.84% at the 95% confidence level and larger for subgroups. The following audiences are included throughout this report:

All: Entire sample of bloggers

Hobbyists (72%)

Part-Timers (15%)

Corporate (4%)

Self Employed (9%)

Technorati data was collected from Technorati's index. Lijit collected data for the 2009 State of the Blogosphere report was from two primary sources. The first is the 11,000 active Lijit publishers that have the Lijit Search Widget installed on their blog. The second is the network of 2.5M blogs that those 11,000 blogs connect to via their Blogroll and other social network connections tracked by Lijit.

Photo Credit: Velveteen Mind