True Socialism

 Milos Forman pretty accurately sums up my feelings whenever I hear politicians and people call President Obama a socialist or a communist: They have no clue what socialism or communism looks like.

Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.

Marx believed that we could wipe out social inequities and Lenin tested those ideas on the Soviet Union. It was his dream to create a classless society. But reality set in, as it always does. And the results were devastating. Blood flowed through Russia’s streets. The Soviet elite usurped all privileges; sycophants were allowed some and the plebes none. The entire Eastern bloc, including Czechoslovakia, followed miserably.

[Via the New York Times]


As a second-generation immigrant, and one who studied her world history, I'm well-aware that the wealthy kids wearing shirts of Che Guevara's face had little idea of the destruction he later came to be a part of. A friend's mother had to coerce her way out of the Stasi (Romanian underground police) and could only claim asylum once on U.S. soil. The current tax code has nothing on the Stasi or the regime changes of Latin America.

The entire article is available here.

Given Permission

Recently, I came across an article by a vehement conservative pro-life U.S. mother, who related her experience giving birth to two children under Canada's universal health care. She spoke about how she had initially opposed the idea on moral grounds, but when she was able to complete all of the pre-natal care, she found herself changed by the expectations of what a government should be to its people.

I started to feel differently about Universal government mandated and regulated Health care. I realized how many times my family had avoided hospital care because of our lack of coverage. When I mentioned to Canadians that I had been in a car accident as a teen and hadn’t gone into the hospital, they were shocked! Here, you always went to the hospital, just in case. And the back issue I had since the accident would have been helped by prescribed chiropractic care which would have been at no cost to me. When I asked for prayers for my little brother who had been burned in a camping accident, they were all puzzled why the story did not include immediately rushing him to the hospital. When they asked me to clarify and I explained that many people in the States are not insured and they try to put off medical care unless absolutely needed, they literally could not comprehend such a thing.

[Via Permission to Live, by A Young Moms Musings]

This is an important difference. Many GOP members have shaped it as a blight on your freedom to be forced to be healthy. Instead, this mother discovered that it gave her the freedom to have a child and get the necessary treatments without worrying about cost or debt. They're also able to do it much more efficiently. Unless you're part of the one percent, comprehensive health care is most likely out of reach.

Growing up in a family that had good health care provided by a parent's employer, I'm still shocked when people put off going to the dentist or the doctor. Health was important, and if you didn't prevent it now, you'd pay for it later. But, I was surprised to learn that my own policy covered chiropractic care, which would have been easier to obtain if I'd had all of the documents translated from legalese into English.

The scary thing for me was always the threat of losing health care. In the U.S., you might need to declare bankruptcy. In Canada, there's health care for you, regardless if you lose your job, have a baby, or get into an accident.

Making sure that all citizens have the ability to receive quality health care, regardless of their ability to pay, is a way to ensure that you're taking care of your entire population, not just the rich.

This is Why We Fight

Now, in the land of frightening news:

While the Florida legislature had allocated $1.5 million to 30 rape crisis centers in the state, Gov. Rick Scott used his line-item veto power to cut the funding. The Governor claimed the funding was “duplicative, since, as a state, we already fund sexual violence programs.” But Jennifer Dritt, the executive director of the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, said individual centers could lose between $30,000 and $100,000 each and don’t have enough funds to serve the 1.2 million women in Florida who “already have been victimized.” 

[Via Feministing.com]

I feel like a lot of people don't realize the magnitude of the problem of sexual assault. Statistically, 1 in 5 women will experience sexual assault at some point in their lives. At least, that's the reported amount. It's within your rights to choose not to report a crime, especially when the justice system is formulated to place the blame on the victim. Yet, these facilities should be available for people to get tested, etc...

I mean we can all agree that violence against women is bad right?  And we can all agree that survivors of domestic abuse need assistance, right?  So why are Republicans opposed to funding that assistance?   Hang ups in this current version of the bill is additional provisions supporting undocumented and LGBT survivors.

[ Via Feministing.com]

 Do we really want perpetrators to believe that it is okay to victimize, as long as the person is undocumented or LGBT? I find this sort of double standard to be very troubling. Undocumented workers in this country already struggle with little protection from the law. Is this the sort of provision that we want to enshrine, a permanent underclass? I should hope not.

Edit: Sadly, related:

 Scholars believe that abuse rates in the ultra-Orthodox world are roughly the same as those in the general population, but for generations, most ultra-Orthodox abuse victims kept silent, fearful of being stigmatized in a culture where the genders are strictly separated and discussion of sex is taboo. When a victim did come forward, it was generally to rabbis and rabbinical courts, which would sometimes investigate the allegations, pledge to monitor the accused, or order payment to a victim, but not refer the matter to the police.

[Via New York Times]

The article continues about the degrees of intimidation experienced by families who speak up about abuse, within the Orthodox Jewish culture. And while I know that the Orthodox Jewish experience is very different from the total Jewish experience, it's still troubling that abuse is not only swept under the rug, the social controls punish the victim.

The Cost and Care of Essential Femininity

This week, in response to a lot of commotion about women's rights over their reproduction, Jezebel posted an interesting run-down of costs of womanhood. As a counterpart to the men who complain about discounts for female drivers and ladies' nights affording women discounted drinks and club entry, the article noted exactly how much an average woman spends on her fertility.

 Given the national debate regarding birth control coverage, it's increasingly clear that many people have no idea how much it costs it to own a vagina — folks are getting up in arms about the idea that the pill could set uninsured women back about $1000 a year, but in the grand scheme of things, that's nothing. Do you even know just how much you're shelling out for your clam? Were you aware of the fact that in your 20s alone, you will spend over $26,000 on vaginal maintenance? Herewith, we do the math on just how much that cooter is costing you.

[Via Jezebel.com]
It all puts me in mind of the soul song, "A Woman's Worth." I remember getting the talk from mom, and wondering exactly what kind of a raw deal I was signed up for. Headaches and bleeding every month? Crazy hormones? Not even counting all the problems with pregnancy! No wonder it was described as a curse.

While I'm grateful to developments in the paper products industry for freeing us from The Red Tent and using washcloths to stem the tide, we haven't progressed much further from that. Women still have a lot of money to spend on their basic maintenance, excluding the fashion trends that make our clothes go out of style sooner, and the push for a 'serious business woman' to look like a fashion model. One friend was hired for her first real job, and told in the interview, that she needed to spend her first few paychecks on clothes. Not transportation, food, or rent. CLOTHES. 

The Atlantic also notes that women have additional costs, and Jezebel's list is by no means exhaustive:

While Morrissey doesn't note this specifically, such health visits could also include procedures like colposcopies and LEEPs, biopsies of various female parts, and so on—all of which, even if a woman is insured, add up with co-pays and costs beyond what insurance covers.

[Via The Atlantic Wire]

As a recipient of those extra procedures and tests, can I just point out how not having insurance is one of my biggest fears? In fact, after a visit to the doctor lead my common cold to cost as much with insurance as without it (thank you co-pays), the insurance debacle, err... debate is really the one that shapes my generation.

Find a lump, get hit by a bus, sneeze a little too hard, but without insurance you're essentially in a Third World Country. At least there, you'd have chickens to barter with. Maybe a goat if you needed surgery.

Europe is scratching its head over the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down President Obama's signature legislative achievement. As the judiciary and the Obama administration trade legal barbs over the high court's authority, the idea that health care coverage, largely considered a universal right in Europe, could be deemed an affront to liberty is baffling.

 [Via The Atlantic Wire]

In a place where I didn't have to worry about filing bankruptcy for health care costs, I'd be more okay with spending a few extra dimes on work clothes. All of this makes me think that a nice Nordic country would be a wonderful place to bear and raise children. Health care, good education and decent holidays? Sign me up!

Bechdel and women's stories

The above video explains a lot of the still-present under-representation of women in the media, yet one of the questions that has troubled people for a long time is: How do we fix it?

We've known for a long time that film is not the only way women are under-represented, yet it isn't the only media form in which women are seen to be in the minority.

The Atlantic is one of my favorite online news sources, yet, while they have 7 female editors and 9 male editors, even they are not exempt from study.

[via The 2011 Count]

Germany seems to be answering the lack of female representation in their own way: with a truly German quota system. (I do love my German friends, but it is amusing how often we react in very specific cultural ways. You'd never catch a Chilean with a quota system!)

 "Sandberg's key points are that there really is a problem, that it's not because of lack of female potential, and that women need to stop shooting themselves in the foot -- no more drawing back ten years early in anticipation of childbearing, for instance. Equally, though, she lists areas where we, as a society, need to improve. We need more equitable division of labor in the home, for example, if we want to see more equitable division of honors in the boardroom.

Most of Sandberg's musings, however, are cultural, and her calls to action are on an individual level. "I don't have the right answer. I don't even have it for myself," says Sandberg early on, noting that a mother's choices are personal and tricky. "My talk today is about what the messages are if you do want to stay in the workforce."

Right now in Germany, the talk has pole-vaulted over the personal and the cultural to the legal. What Labor Minister Ursula von der Leyen wants, and what she frankly seems pretty frustrated not yet to have gotten, going by her remarks to German television, are legally binding quotas."

 [Via The Atlantic, A German Idea to Break the Corporate Glass Ceiling: Gender Quotas]

The quota system is the response to the low rate of females in the upper levels of finance and media. 

The Atlantic's Heather Horn isn't quite so keen on a similar idea happening in the U.S.

I'm pretty wary of gender quotas for a number of reasons. The principle of equal protection under the law, enshrined in the U.S. in the Fourteenth Amendment, has a lot going for it, and quotas, even when set internally, are one hell of a mess where equal protection is concerned. Though the aim is to correct an injustice, and the assumption is that the highly qualified women who have previously been passed over will now get the jobs they, by merit, deserve, that's not necessarily the way it plays out.

Quotas demand that companies hire female workers whether they're the best hires or not; and, in cases where they're not the best hires, absolutely no one wins. Spare me the argument that it at least accustoms people to having women in charge: a woman in a position she didn't earn builds resentment and only reinforces the nasty assumptions that the hire was supposed to correct in the first place. The answer to unmerited male hires isn't to encourage unmerited female hires.

And let's consider the message that long-term quotas would send. Do we really want a younger generation to get the impression that women need protection from the free market? And even if you buy the current argument for quotas, what does it say that they're being set at 30 percent, rather than 50?

 [Via The Atlantic, What the World Can Learn From Germany's Debate Over Gender Quotas]

 I'm prone to agree with her. I don't want people to assume that the only reason I have my position is because I am the 'diversity hire' instead of the best candidate for the position. I do believe that we should definitely pursue diversity in hiring, especially in the areas of media and professorship.


I think there are many more factors that go into these decisions. Finance is a profession that is often seen as a 70-hour work week, which would prove prohibitive to anyone who might desire a reasonable balance of work-life. From my conversations with female professors, many cited that because they are female, they get swamped with obligations to be the female representative on many boards and associations, and required to do so. Their male colleagues, even those with similar qualifications in the realm of gender studies, are not required to do so. 


I'm also not inclined to believe that simply because a person is of a certain race, sexual orientation or gender, it lessens their voice. I took a sociology course in Diversity and Inequality from a white, heterosexual male professor, but his research and insight into the field of African American Studies and Gender Studies had made him wonderfully insightful.


Rather than quotas, I think that we should focus more on mentoring women in finance, the media, and universities. Have a way for them to see what needs to be done to scale the ladder and networks available for them to do so. We have already made many strides in education, but still have a ways to go. It might not be the sole solution, but its definitely a good way to begin.

More on Women's Agency and Human Rights

In the last post, I spoke a bit about women's rights to control their own contraception, which is currently under debate.

Now, for a place where women have no control over their lives or their bodies:

"Shakila, 8 at the time, was drifting off to sleep when a group of men carrying AK-47s barged in through the door. She recalls that they complained, as they dragged her off into the darkness, about how their family had been dishonored and about how they had not been paid....Shakila’s case is unusual both because she managed to escape and because she and her family agreed to share their plight with an outsider. The reaction of the girl’s father to the abduction also illustrates the difficulty in trying to change such a deeply rooted cultural practice: he expressed fury that she was abducted because, he said, he had already promised her in marriage to someone else."
-NYTimes, "Afghan Girls are Penalized for Elders' Misdeeds" 

The local society justifies the trading because its seen as a way to stabilize family feuds, ya know, barring the whole kidnapping and forced marriage part.They argue that the girl, who was considered a burden on her parents will suddenly transform to a valuable asset, now that she has married a man much her senior, but reports differ, and the women are commonly beaten into submission and treated lower than servants. Her parents cannot take her back, now that she is 'damaged goods' and would violate the terms of using her as their debt payment. The local government outlaws the practice, but has little power to enforce, and ramifications are serious if you contact outsiders to plead your case.

This story is not the worst of its kind, but it reminds us that in many places, being female means lacking the agency for your own life decisions and being someone's property.

 It would be easy to dismiss the current debate over contraception as isolated incidents, but they are part of a larger, more pandemic problem where women are considered unworthy of equal treatment.

"Don't be defeatist, dear, it's very middle class."

via the Dowager Countess, Downton Abbey

While I might resemble my mother in my love for the BBC series, Downton Abbey is a unique period piece on an era no-longer accessible to us. The last WWI veterans have only recently passed, being barely legal to serve at the end of the war.

[images originally posted on Arrested Downton]


It would be easy to just make it a nostalgic tribute, but the BBC goes much further, into investigating some of the changes this war brought about.

[Spoiler alert for those who haven't reached the end of Season 2 yet]

 An interesting character case is the now-fallen from grace Ethel, who was caught in an affair with an army officer, dismissed, pregnant, and currently struggling to make her child's grandparents recognize their now-deceased son's child. Before the days of paternity testing, before the days of birth control, pregnancy and no husband (dead or alive) means that Ethel is unable to work, living on handouts, and very frightened of the future.

While we're not sure where season 3 will take Ethel, now that she has refused her baby daddy's parents' offer to take the child off her hands, the situation does shed curious light on the forgetful nature of the contraception debate now taking place, which has dominated the American news cycle.

Birth control has been equated to abortion, called a religious freedom issue that does not concern women, and considered just cause to sue the government.

Ok, first things first.

1. Women have babies, not men. In societies where women have their children later, and have a say in their reproductive health, they live longer, and healthier, and produce healthier children. It's a sign of the well-being of an entire country.

2. Prior to the birth control we have today, most women were seen as having to suffer for having sex whatsoever, i.e. Ethel. It was common for women to be cast out of society, impoverished and marginalized for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Darling founding father Jefferson had several illegitimate children with his slaves, for example. Motherhood was not as saintly until women had the options to delay or prevent motherhood. That Ethel is blamed for her sins, while the officer is not forced to lift a finger to acknowledge his child, was a very real reality for many poorer women.

3. The legislation is for employers, and employers are held to certain standards. That this is a 'war on religious freedom' is a false claim. This is merely closing the gap on a few regulations that had already existed for decades. Choosing what religion to follow is not tantamount to having an employer decide what benefits you are eligible for. In an era of great religious diversity, its important that we have a common denominator for a standard of health. Currently, employers are the main way for Americans to receive health care. But, if a Christian Scientist employer decided to not offer health care to their employees, because of their religious beliefs, we wouldn't bat an eye at requiring them to comply. Because this issue has to deal with what happens in people's bedrooms and during an election year, it's become a hot-button issue.

4. Most Catholics don't see birth control as affecting their religious beliefs. The Bishops haven't changed their position, yet, the size of families has shrunk in the past few generations.
"Most Catholics — meaning, to be more precise, people who were raised Catholic or converted as adults and continue to take church teachings and practices seriously — now reserve the right to reject doctrines insisted on by their bishops and to interpret in their own way the doctrines that they do accept.  This is above all true in matters of sexual morality, especially birth control, where the majority of Catholics have concluded that the teachings of the bishops do not apply to them.  Such “reservations” are an essential constraint on the authority of the bishops."
-Source: NYT, "Birth Control, Bishops and Religious Authority"

This issue is primarily a women's health issue, that directly affects women's quality of life. One has only to look at the Duggar family (19 children! OMG!) and remember that it wasn't so long ago that women had ridiculous amounts of children, most of whom didn't survive, some of whom cost the mother her life. Those who survived, and couldn't be afforded were sent to orphanages, with horrible conditions. Illegitimate children were more likely to be sent to baby farms, the infanticide of said children was a hanging offense. Though dark, it was part of a long history of drastic and grisly measures (like ancient Roman mothers, when children were selected by gender) that people have taken when having no other options.

But that all changed when women are allowed to limit their fertility.  It is very old history, even if parts were forgotten, but still makes the news. In an era where we're facing shortages of natural resources, it makes sense to not follow the command to Noah: "Be fruitful and multiply." 7 billion people on the planet. Check, and check. Now, about that whole taking care of creation bit...

I've very little tolerance for pro-life advocates who act as though life begins at conception and ends at birth. There are much bigger issues at stake. Yet, poverty, starvation and the death penalty do not receive the same kind of press as a minor requirement to provide contraception to employees.

It's a very central tenet of the Jude-Christian faiths that you will be judged for your actions, but the pundits (primarily male) want to decide how women should manage their health and reproduction. Motherhood is a wonderful thing, when the mother is able to care for her child. A woman knows when she is not ready for children or marriage. This is her human right, not a culture war.

Religion is a personal decision. Reproduction should be a personal decision.