Yearly Archives: 2010

Obama’s tragic abortion concession turns bill into law

Posted on by
2

I know Obama couldn’t please everyone. I realize he had to make concessions to get his floundering health care bill passed. I, like many Americans, wanted it passed. But yesterday, when the pro-choice president announced his executive order, ensuring his bill would win crucial votes by promising there would be no changes to the restrictions on federal money used for abortions, my heart sank.

For women, access to choice is access to health care. Obama’s decision leaves poor women out of a new law that was supposed to protect them.

The AP reported:

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said the order provides safeguards to ensure that the status quo is “upheld and enforced.” Long-standing federal policy bars U.S. aid for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger. The order is designed to help assure the passage of Obama’s massive health care bill by winning support from a bloc of anti-abortion lawmakers.

President Obamawww.siliconindia.com 

President Obama

First of all, the faulty logic of the anti-abortion position alarms me as usual. The rape/ incest qualification makes no sense. If abortion is murder, why is it OK to murder the innocent fetus if the mother was raped or an incest survivor? Clearly, that’s not the fetus’ fault.

I guess this bad thinking implies that any other time besides rape or incest when a woman gets pregnant, it is her fault; therefore, it’s OK to legislate that the guilty woman carry the baby and give birth. But it remains contradictory for the government to put itself in the position of determining that sometimes it’s OK to murder a blameless fetus.

Whenever the reproductive rights debate strays into territory of how or why the woman became pregnant, or whether or not life begins at conception, it always becomes infinite and nonsensical. Instead, the reproductive rights debate should come down to this: the rights of the mother versus the rights of the fetus. The mother’s rights, the citizen’s, must supersede the rights of the fetus, as long as it’s dependent on her body for survival.

It’s not ethical rocket science. As a philosophy major in college, we were presented with a basic ethical dilemma (not unlike the latest Jodi Picoult movie): a child has a mysterious disease; the only way this child can recover is if the mother attaches herself to the child’s body for ten months. Can the government legislate the mother perform this procedure? Or father? Perhaps the cousin? Or second cousin? Maybe the best friend? Can the government legislate that one human give her spare kidney away to a human whose life depends on it? Obviously, it isn’t ethical for the government to intrude on these personal choices.

Anti-abortion Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak of Michiganwww.cnn.com 

Anti-abortion Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan

No one wants abortions. There is a clear way to reducing them: empowering women. But Obama’s concession disempowers women far beyond even basic health care. It’s a tragic concession, because until all women have full reproductive rights, America remains far from becoming a strong and healthy country.

Here’s a piece I wrote for the Chronicle when Nader was running against Bush, about how people still don’t get that choice affects everything. Sadly, that cluelessness holds true today, just add “pro-life democrat” every time I write “republican.”

Ask a pro-choice person to explain casting a vote for a pro-life candidate, and the proud response is likely to be: “I don’t support candidates based on just one issue. I care about education, health care, and the economy too.”

Even political savvy supporters of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader aren’t that concerned with the threat to a woman’s right to choose, claiming its one issue among many.

But choice has never been a single issue. Reproductive rights don’t exist in isolation They have everything to do with women’s economic and political power, women’s access to education and health care, women’s status in society and women’s abilities to take care of themselves and their children.

Margaret Sangerwww.nndb.com 

Margaret Sanger

Birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger once said, “If a woman doesn’t have the right to control her own body, she has no rights.” Choice is a political barometer, indicative of how politicians feel not only about the basic rights of women, but about the role of women in society, abut sex education, health care, welfare, poverty, the economy and the role the government should play in an individual’s life.

A position on choice indicates whether your representative will fight to get your kids vaccinated and to make contraception affordable.

Years ago, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, said that pro-lifers believe “life begins at conception and ends at birth,” meaning pro-life politicians are adamant about protecting the fetus but don’t care much about protecting the child once its born

His notion was rekindled recently when Prof Jean Schroedel of Claremont College came out with a survey examining the relationship between state abortion laws and spending on children. Her research revealed that the states that most severely limit abortion are the same ones that spend the least on foster care, parents who adopt special needs children, and poor women with dependent children. States with strict abortion laws consistently accorded lower political, economic and social status to women. For example, Louisianna had some of the tougest abortion laws and spent $602 per child. Hawaii had some of the most liberal laws and spent $4,648 per child.

Schroedel also discovered that states with restricted abortion laws consistently accorded lower political, economic and social status to women.

Naifs Sadikwww.iisd.ca/images/wsphoto.htm 

Naifs Sadik

Her findings support the work of Nafis Sadik, executive director of the United Nations World Population Fund. Sadik has been instrumental in turning the debate over how to limit population growth into a campaign for women’s rights.

She is widely credited with bringing attention to the correlation between over population and the status of women. When women are educated, when they achieve economic independence, when they have access to good health care, when they are valued in society for their intellect and their accomplishments, they have fewer babies.

Unfortunately, pro-life politicians still don’t seem concerned with improving the status of women. One classic example is presidential candidate George W. Bush. Look at his record as governor of Texas.

Texas women had a higher than average chance of living in poverty. The state minimum wage, earned by those in the female-dominated service and domestic workers industries was $3.35 per hour, totaling $6,700 annually for full time employment.

The percentage of women and children without health insurance is the second highest in the country.

Texas ranks 42nd in per capita welfare spending.

Bush made it more difficult for women to obtain abortions in times of crisis, but offered no preventative policy initiatives to reduce unintended pregnancy, no expansion of family planning or funding services, no comprehensive sexuality education program and no insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Texas had the second highest rate of teen pregnancy in the nation.

And the Texas system doesn’t promote sexual health. Texas law requires that sex education courses teach abstinence, but it does not require teaching contraception or HIV/ STD prevention.

Compare that to France where mandatory sexuality education begins when students are 13. Parents are prohibited from withdrawing their teenagers from this program. France’s teenage birthrate is approximately 6 times lower than the rate in the US; its teen abortion rate more than 2x lower, and overall AIDS rate, more than 3x lower.

Governor Bushwww.sfgate.com 

Governor Bush

Conservatives like to say, “The government that governs best, governs least.” What happened to this party? Now, they sound so much more like big government believers.

Many Americans wonder how they came to intrude so much into our private lives, legislating personal choices like whom we should sleep with or pray to.

The reason is because if politicians aren’t going to help to provide access to health care, contraception, STD prevention, access to child care and sex education, and economic autonomy there is nowhere to go but blame pregnancies on loose morals and loose women.

If Republicans acknowledge that women have reproductive rights, they’ll have to acknowledge that women have other rights as well. For Texas, that would mean reasonable funding for family planning and welfare, a higher minimum wage, insurance to cover contraceptives, real sex education and access to heath care.

Pro choice isn’t one issue and it isn’t one choice. Pro-choice means women have the choice to graduate from college, the choice to borrow money to start a business, the choice to get a good job with a fair wage, the choice not live in poverty and keep their kids out of poverty. Choice means that women get to be autonomous citizens, just like men do- with the power to determine their own destinies.

Pro-life candidate George Bush understands better than anyone that choice isn’t just one issue Before heading to the ballot box in November, Americans need to realize pro-life is really only pro-birth.

The Republicans’ concern for mother and child is severed with the cutting of the umbilical cord.

Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland ***GGG***

Posted on by
1

“Alice in Wonderland” is one of the best children’s movies I’ve ever seen. I loved it, as did my kids and their cousins, ages seven to three.

AliceDisney 

Alice

Full disclosure: I’ve always been partial to Alice. I named my second daughter after the heroine (and also after my smart and brave mother-in law.)

There are a few things straight up that are rare and remarkable about Tim Burton’s movie.

1) There is a girl in the title that is not a princess

2) There are 4 major female roles: Alice, the Red Queen, the White Queen, and the Doormouse

3) Spoiler alert: the movie doesn’t end in a happy romance. Even though it begins with an engagement party, it finishes with Alice off on her own, pursuing her brilliant idea to improve her late father’s business.

White QueenDisney 

White Queen

The movie is beautiful and exciting to watch. I especially loved Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Unlike “Coraline,” which I also loved, “Alice” has scary parts, but was not too scary for my kids. (Ok, one cousin fled briefly, but she came right back in.) All the children were mesmerized by one of the last scenes, another spoiler alert coming, when Alice slays the Jabberwocky, the dragon like creature/pet of the evil Red Queen.

Which brings me to angry criticism I’ve read of “Alice” all over the internet: the movie is unfaithful to the original books. Some react to Burton’s interpretation as if it’s a personal betrayal, unable to see anything positive in this rebellious movie. For example, in the original Through the Looking Glass, there is a poem where a brave boy kills the Jabberwocky. Now it’s Alice. Horrors!

Red QueenDisney 

Red Queen

Re-interpretation is what keeps stories alive across generations. They’re basically just a few myths out there (haven’t these guys read their Joseph Campbell?) that keep getting recycled. Mostly, these days, people don’t believe in privileging the author’s interpretation anyway; it’s a limited idea. Why get so pissed off that Tim Burton has his way with a story, transforming “Alice” into an exciting tale about girl empowerment, instead of staying loyal to the writer, Lewis Carroll, who was a well know as a pedophile or at least a passionate collector of erotic images of little girls?

DoormouseDisney 

Doormouse

When I saw the commercials I was worried Tim Burton wasn’t going to make this kind of brave film. As I wrote about in other posts on my blog, most of the advertisements around San Francisco didn’t show Alice, but Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. I worried he would be the star. A couple ads showed Helena Boham Carter as the Red Queen. Her make up is fabulous, but where was Alice?

Also, the commercials on TV showed Alice being proposed to at an engagement party, so I thought it might somehow be another girls’ movie about a wedding. I was wrong on both counts, and now I feel like if that kind of advertising gets people to see this great movie– who cares? “Alice” does feature a stellar ensemble cast, but everyone, even Johnny Depp, is clearly in a supporting role to Alice. And watching the shy Alice transform into an entrepreneur at the end of the move is pretty cool.

We didn’t watch it in 3D; we’re all kind of sick of 3D, the gimmickiness of it and wearing the annoying glasses. Those special effects are not needed to make this movie visually fabulous.

I am really impressed Tim Burton pulled this off. “Alice in Wonderland” gets a ***GGG*** rating.

Can’t Sandra Bullock Have it All?

Posted on by
Reply

The latest reports of Sandra Bullock’s husband cheating on her may not be true, but remain depressing nevertheless. Stories of Sandra’s husband’s affair burning up the internet as she simultaneously celebrates worldwide public recognition for becoming one of the most powerful women in Hollywood sends an ominous warning to women: don’t rise too high, because if you do, you’ll probably be alone.

Just a couple weeks ago, Sandra seemed to have it all: critical acclaim with her best actress Academy Award win and financial success, her films were also top grossing movies. Many were calling this Hollywood’s “year of the woman.” When Bullock gave her acceptance speech, she thanked her husband, Jesse James, whose love, she has said, made her a better actress, giving her the courage to try new kinds of parts because she had him to come home too. James watched Bullock claim the Oscar with tears in his eyes. Viewing the show I was thinking: it’s so great and so rare to see a man publicly love and admire his woman, sit in the audience and watch her while she shines, so different than the scenario we’re used too of the wife being the cheerleader for her guy, the wives of female politicians always clapping and grinning by their husbands’ sides.

Sandra BullockSandra Bullock 

Bullock isn’t the only actress to have her marriage break up after reaching new heights of success.

Reese Witherspoon’s family famously fell apart after her Oscar win for her incredible performance as June Cash in “Walk the Line”. Supposedly her husband, Ryan Phillipe was jealous. The same thing happened after Julia Roberts’ won for “Erin Brokovich.” She was with Benjamin Bratt. Kate Winslet and Sam Mendes also ended their marriage after her win. Other successful actresses whose marriages supposedly broke up because they surpassed their husbands include Hilary Swank and Jenifer Garner, who didn’t win an Oscar but also eclipsed her husband’s TV fame.

Of course, we don’t know why these couples really broke up, but the rumors themselves perpetuate a dangerous myth that becomes real female fear: if a woman reaches too high, she will become unattractive to her partner. Women as a group are permitted one kind of power in our culture: sexual power. But in order to really win at that, they mustn’t get too much of other kinds including money, intelligence, acclaim etc. This is the same philosophy behind the idea that still persists: women can be pretty or smart, the stupid barbie or ugly feminist dichotomy, breast size has an inverted ratio to brain size.

While for a man, just the opposite is true. His intelligence makes him appealing. And the higher he climbs– in sports, in business, in the arts– the more women want him. Sexual desirability is a highly motivating factor to achieve, but too often, it works in reverse for women.

Reese Witherspoon and Ryan PhillipeReese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillipe 

Before all the social Darwinists claim females seeking out powerful males to protect them is in our DNA, that’s just a convenient way to justify the current power structure. If a woman appears weak, it’s easy for a guy to appear strong. When women are told their main power is sexual, and if they try for anything else, that will take away from their attractiveness, it’s an effective tool to keep women in their in place. Allowing women to be smart, rich, and pretty is too threatening– what else might those women do?

Julia Roberts and Benjamin BrattJulia Roberts and Benjamin Bratt 

I’m not attacking men here, by the way, but the power structure. The gender power gap in our society, or taken to its extreme as in the gender apartheid of the Taliban, doesn’t make any one happy. Men are imprisoned by these roles too because pigeonholing is limiting for everyone. Duh. Being competent, doing something well, is super-attractive in everyone. The world will be so better off when the other half is allowed to shine.

Hunter needs a “Rielle-ity” check

Posted on by
Reply

(photos not working right now so please use your imagination picturing Rielle, Jessica, and Miley)

Does Rielle Hunter have a mom? Or dad?

Didn’t anyone ever tell her that if you’re with another person, and you take off your pants, and get on a bed, nothing “appropriate” is likely happen?

She “trusted” the photographer?

She is “repulsed” by the photos?

Hunter’s reaction to the sexy photographs of her in GQ is so nonsensical, she desperately needs “Rielle-ity check” –a term that should apply to any celebrity, or wannabe pseudo-celebrity, who sets out to get media attention, but when the public has a bad reaction to said attention, she falsely accuses the media of exploiting her.

Rielle Hunter knew exactly what she was doing when she put on a string of pearls, took off her clothing, and hopped on a bed to pose for a GQ photographer. Her problem now is that the public doesn’t like the pictures, or the interview, so Rielle is trying to shake the responsibility for the whole skanky event.

Maybe Rielle Hunter’s latest lies are getting to me because the Edwards-Hunter story has been so gross and duplicitous all along. I keep thinking, along with a lot of people: what if Edwards had been elected VP and then his affair and “love child” were revealed? The scandal would’ve destabilized the country.

Another Rielle-ity check is needed for the whole Jessica Simpson/ John Mayer fiasco around Mayer’s infamous Playboy interview where he called Jessica “sexual napalm.”

Mayer has acted like jerk in so many interviews, like the one when he worked so hard to make clear he dumped Jennifer Aniston, not the other way around. Or when he was trying to be funny, I guess, and said of reality star Kristen Cavallari, “I have never high-fived Kristin Cavallari with my penis…My Milli has never slam danced with her Vanilli.” The guy makes me cringe.

But referring to Jessica as “sexual napalm” is not derogatory. Supposedly, Jessica was flattered when she first heard it, and why wouldn’t she be? She’s worked very hard to convince America sexual napalm is exactly what she is.

It’s very different than what Mayer said in the same interview about Jennifer Aniston, cattily implying that Jennifer would be jealous he was talking about Jessica, and also making Jennifer seem about 1000 years old, saying she was stuck in 1998, back when she was “successful” and that now she can’t even Twitter.

Still, the tabloids and talk shows were up in arms about Mayer’s statements about Jessica, reporting those were the offensive ones. Then Jessica, and her dad of course, came out to give interviews about how hurt she was. Oprah invited Jessica on her show to complain about the interview that “almost destroyed her.”

Billy Ray and Miley Cyrus needed a Rielle-ity check after the public had a bad reaction to teenage Miley’s disturbingly erotic poses in Vanty Fair. Miley was a kid; it wasn’t her fault. But Billy Ray, after being with Miley for most of the shoot (and posing in a weirdly intimate way with her) decided to leave her alone with the photographer, and blamed Annie Leibovitz for everything. Note to dads: if your underage daughter poses for Vanity Fair, stick around until the shoot is over.

Jezebel responds to my post on Auntie Briagde

Posted on by
Reply

Anna S. writes on Jezebel after reading my post on the “Auntie Brigade” (inspired by Elizabeth Gilberts new book Committed) that she agrees childless women should be more valued in society, not necessarily for taking care of or inspiring others but also for their own accomplishments. Commenters tell Jezebel stories of important aunts in their lives.

Anna S. writes:

I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, I grew up really close to a childless aunt. She introduced me to the Archie McPhee catalog, let me stay up late while she told embarrassing stories about my mom, and taught me why they don’t send donkeys to college (nobody likes a smart ass). She’s been a pretty huge influence on my sense of humor and on my cultural tastes (though her tendency to remember only the one funny line from an otherwise shitty movie means I no longer go with her to Blockbuster), and she had a big enough hand in my brother’s and my upbringing that my mom used her to explain the concept of an allomother. That’s an animal who provides some care for other animals’ young, which seems to be sort of how Magowan understands aunts.

But: my aunt has also spent much of her life not caring for anybody’s young. She works, she plays with her dogs, she has a big network of friends and cousins she often travels to see. Helping raise us has certainly been part of her history, but she has many other identities besides “aunt,” and she deserves recognition as a person in her own right, not just as a contributor to my family. As Magowan points out, childless men are often “admired, or even envied, as the self-sufficient bachelors they are.” Childless women deserve to be admired for themselves too — not just for what they can do for others.

Gabourey Sidibe isn’t too fat for Hollywood, she’s too black

Posted on by
3
In the wake of actress Gabourey Sidibe’s Academy Award nomination for her incredible performance in “Precious,” many are saying she’ll never get another part in a Hollywood movie because she’s too fat. But they’re wrong: even if the talented actress lost weight, she’d still be too black for Hollywood.
Gabourey SidibeGabourey Sidibe 

Sidibe doesn’t conform to Hollywood’s narrow beauty requirements for romantic leads and stars: actresses should be white women, preferably blonde.

Until Hollywood’s executives start looking more like Sidibe and less like Harvey Weinstein, the fat, white guy who founded Miramax, Sidibe’s going to have trouble getting roles.

Because Hollywood is run by white men, their counterparts will star in films regardless of their weight (see Jack Black or any Judd Apatow movie) or age (Daniel Day Lewis, Harrison Ford, Mel Gibson, Richard Gere, Denzel washington, Pierce Brosnan, the list goes on and on) or acting ability (Keanu Reeves, Tom Cruise). In producing films, white men get to play God just like they do on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, creating their fantasies and selling them to the public. There’s nothing wrong with putting your imaginative stories out into the world, but there needs to be some diversity in the power structure so that other people get opportunities to make their dreams come true too.

There is some evidence Hollywood is slowly changing. The reason “Precious” got made at all is because African Americans busted through the racial/ class barrier. Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry got successful and got rich, so they were able to make and promote a movie. Successful black women in Hollywood include Queen Latifah, Jada Pinkett Smith, Cicely Tyson, Traji Henson, Viola Davis, and Zoe Saldana.

Harvey Weinstein and Gwyneth PaltrowHarvey Weinstein and Gwyneth Paltrow 

There are more to be added to the list, but they remain a tiny minority. A woman couldn’t be much skinner or “conventionally beautiful,” than Saldana, the light skinned, African-American star of “Avatar” and “Star Trek.” Saldana says in Us Weekly: “In Hollywood, you hear things like ‘Oh, they loved you but they want to go more traditional.’ That’s the new n-word.”

But when it comes to race in Hollywood, even shock jock Howard Stern skates the issue, sticking with the socially acceptable bias, making fun of fat people. On his Sirius talk radio show, Stern said of Sidibe, “There’s the most enormous, fat black chick I’ve ever seen. She is enormous. Everyone’s pretending she’s a part of show business and she’s never going to be in another movie. She should have gotten the Best Actress award because she’s never going to have another shot. What movie is she gonna be in?” Stern says of Oprah’s speech to Sidibe: “Oprah’s another liar…telling an enormous woman the size of a planet that she’s going to have a career.””

Zoe SaldanaZoe Saldana 

Actress/ signer, Jessica Simpson, no stranger to viscious criticism about her weight, defends Sidibe, but also avoids the race issue, saying of Stern’s comments: “It’s unfortunate because she walked the red carpet at the Oscars and she owned it. She was beautiful. There was no denying that she did not think she was the most beautiful person on that red carpet. She was just owning that moment for herself. She had such confidence and I absolutely 100 percent think she could get anything in the world that she wanted.”

Confidence can only get you so far when white guys run Hollywood. Simpson knows that. Supposedly, in her new show, “The Price of Beauty,” Simpson researched this. I wish Simpson had said something like: “I’ve just done a program abut exploring different standards of beauty around the globe, and here in Southern California, Gabourey has three strikes against her as far as getting part she wants in movies: she’s fat, she’s black, and she’s a woman.”

Here are the Hollywood stats from Martha M. Lauzen’s annual study “The Celluloid Ceiling.” I don’t know what the breakdown is on race.

In Hollywood, women make up:

7% of directors

8% of writers

17% of executive producers

23% of producers

18% of editors

2% of cinematographers

Sidibe does have parts lined up for herself: an upcoming feature film co-starring Zoe Kravitz called “Yelling to the Sky,” and a recurring part in Showtime’s new dark comedy series, “The Big C,” which also stars Laura Linney and Oliver Platt. She also has some powerful people backing her like Winfrey and Perry. But until there are some major changes in the Hollywood power structure, Sidibe will need a back up career

Kate Gosselin’s ambition doesn’t make her a bad mom

Posted on by
2

Kate Gosselin graces the cover of People Magazine and US Weekly again this week. She wants fame, she wants power, she wants money– she’s a bad mom!

John Gosselin, the father of Kate’s eight kids is a deadbeat father, still out of a job, and giving no indication that he’s the least bit interested in finding a career to support his family. But John’s not choosing to exploit his fame to get a gig on a hit show, he’s only using it to attract young co-eds and crash out in their houses.

Kate GosselinKate Gosselin 

I’m not saying Kate Gosselin is a model mom. From what I’ve read, she often seems selfish, angry, and narcisstic. I don’t understand why she had eight kids in the first place. But here they are, and she’s got to support them, otherwise your tax dollars will be. I suppose there are other jobs she could find, besides her stint on “Dancing with the Stars” and the continued money she’ll get from keeping herself in the spotlight. Kate was formerly a nurse, but her problem now is that you can’t support eight kids on a nurse’s salary. You can’t support eight kids without working your ass off, which is just what she’s choosing to do.

Past media coverage of contestants on “Dancing with the Stars” usually involves waxing effusively on their hard work, along with kudos for how their dedication transformed their bodies. For no other cast member, have I seen attacks about what monsterous parents they were for leaving their kids, or even much coverage about whether or not those contestants were parents at all. But in Kate’s case, Us Weekly reporters have become the mommy police, staking out Kate’s house and clocking the exact minutes she spends with her children. (I hope none of these reporters are moms, neglecting their kids while keeping vigil on Kate.) Certainly, people wouldn’t be directing this level of ire at John Gosselin if he were spending hours a day at rehearsals for the demanding show.

Kate Gosselin happens to be the breadwinner for her family; being a breadwinner is an essential part of being a good and present parent.

Yet, in the year 2010, our definitions of being a good mother and being a good father remain diametrically opposed. Today, when a father goes in for a job interview, his potential boss will usually think: “This guy has a family to support, he’ll be a good worker.” A mother interviewing for the same job is considered by different standards: she could be an unreliable worker, running off for school meetings or staying home if a kid is sick. Being a good mom is being a nurturer; being a good dad is being a breadwinner. But in reality, outside of the spotlight, plenty of moms work long hours to support their kids including lawyers, doctors, and CEOs. Sometimes I think we should take a break from these mom/ dad labels and just use “parent” to get across how differently we perceive these strikingly similar roles of raising and supporting our kids.

Kate Gosselin has eight kids so we think she ought to be “maternal” kind of like how Martha Stewart excelled at homemaking so she should be warm and fuzzy– it makes people dislike and distrust these women for their contradictions within the constrained cultural definitions of femininity. Clearly, Kate Gosselin is not a natural nurturer, but hopefully, she can still find some way to be a somewhat decent mom to her kids.