Red State Feminist Blog:

A New Birth Control Pill for Men: Two Scenarios

Red State Feminists were intrigued to hear that an Israeli scientist is well on his way to creating the first birth control pill for men. Haim Breitbart, the inventor, says it works perfectly in mice. They administer the "Bright Pill" every other day, and the mouse is sterile, though does not lose its sex drive. If the Bright Pill is discontinued, fertility returns. The pill apparenlty works by blocking the synthesis of new proteins in the sperm, which is required for the sperm to remain viable. According to Breitbart, the pill would have to be taken about a week in advance of intercourse. As to whether the pill would have to be taken weekly, or more frequently or les frequently, is not addressed in the article.

Well, this certainly heralds a whole new world! Or does it? Red State Feminists envision two scenarios. Scenario One (70% probability): Men just couldn't be bothered to take responsibility for obtaining and using the pill when needed and/or men suspect that the pill will in fact somehow derange their reproductive system and imperil their manhood. Either way, men just don't use it. Indeed, given that an Israeli scientist came up with it, you can bet that no Muslim man would touch it, for fear it's an Israeli plot to render them permanently sterile. In this scenario, nothing really changes, except for those men who will view it as a way to get what they have wanted all along: a way to ensure that a woman is not lying when she says she is on birth control.

But Scenario Two is much more ominous. In Scenario Two, men see that they can now control whether women can have babies. You might say, well, don't they already? It takes two persons to make a baby, so in a sense men control whether there are babies. Well, yes and no. Men's sex drive, coupled with their general lack of interest in bearing any responsibility for their fertility, has meant that sexually active men usually end up with children, planned or not. And the world goes on.

But one could invent an interesting sci-fi scenario where men decide they still want sex, but want to be sterile. Now, this is what women have had to put up with, but women's contraceptive-imposed sterility had to do with the incontinence of the male sex drive. You couldn't keep a man if he wanted sex unless you were prepared to give in on providing sex, and if you were a woman that meant you might wind up getting pregnant.

But men don't get pregnant. Contraceptive-imposed sterility for men means something else than what it means for women. It means having the ability to have completely irresponsible, uncommitted sex, and it also means something else to hold over a woman's head. As if a woman wasn't already in a comparatively powerless position in her sexual relationship with a man, now a man--even a married man--can say, "Do as I want, or I will never give you a baby." And he can make it stick.

And that might be multiplied outward within a society, to the point where sexually active men typically don't end up having any children. And that society just might not go on. Of course, sub-replacement birth rates are now the rule in Europe and Japan. But women had a say in that. The new Bright Pill can make it possible for men to have the only say.

These worrisome new technologies at least have one thing going for them: they certainly reveal very clearly what one's values and priorities are.

July 27, 2010 by Red State Gal

  

The Equal Visibility Everywhere Project

Red State Feminists applaud the new Equal Visibility Everywhere Project! It is a brand-new non-profit organization dedicated to equal visibility between women and men in what we see around us--street names, images on currency and coins, statuary in government buildings and monuments, and so forth. Is there such a visibility gap? Equal Visibility Everywhere says yes, documenting how many male-images-per-female-image we see around us. Started by Dr. Lynnette Long, a licensed psychologist, in March 2010, Equal Visibility Everywhere is dedicated to changing what our children see in their lives. She says,

"I would like the men in the room to imagine living in my world. Imagine how you would feel if all the statues inside and outside this building were of women, and all the paintings on the walls of this building were of women leaders, and when you opened your wallet to pay for your lunch only images of women were on the money, and every president and every vice president in our history was a woman. Would you stand where you stand today if that were our nation’s legacy?"

That's a very good question, isn't it? Long continues,

We live in a culture dominated by male icons, images, memorials, and statues. This subtle but continuous flood of male images both inflates male entitlement and diminishes the confidence of women. When girls and women don’t see themselves on our currency or our stamps, or memorialized in our statuary, the message is clear: You are invisible. You don’t matter.

Eighty percent of communication is non-verbal, and the lack of visual images of women leaders has a significant negative impact on girls and women. Parents may tell their daughters they can be anything they want, but our nation’s symbols tell a different story. The visual overrides the verbal. Girls don’t hear yes you can when all they see is no you can’t. Most things children learn are not learned in school. Children absorb intellectual and emotional lessons from their parents, their environment, and the symbols and icons that surround them. Unfortunately, our country’s culture and icons do not foster the self-esteem of both genders equally.

Although women make up 51% of the population, and have contributed significantly to the development of this country, our contributions are all but ignored. Consider these facts:
* There isn’t a single national holiday named after a woman.

* Not a single woman graces our paper currency.

* Only nine of the 100 statues in National Statuary Hall are of women.

* Less than 25% of the postage stamps issued by our government to commemorate individuals are of women.

* The overwhelming majority of streets are named after men.

* In New York City there are 150 statues of people: 145 are men and 5 are of women.

* The overwhelming majority of schools are named after men.

We have previously written of the new Mothers' Monument Movement, to commemorate all the women who have died incident to pregnancy and childbirth in our country (which number dwarfs the number of men who have died in battle for our country.) The Equal Visibility Everywhere organization is a wonderful idea . . . and Red State Feminists are 100% behind it! Contact the organization for information on how to lead the effort in your state to make women more visible!

July 17, 2010 by Red State Gal

  

A Quote Well Worth Pondering, Even Today

Red State Feminists stumbled upon a quote from an early feminist in 1902. The author is Carrie Chapman Catt, and here is what she said:

The world taught woman nothing skillful and then said her work was valueless. It permitted her no opinions and then said she did not know how to think. It forbade her to speak in public, and said the sex had no orators. It denied her the schools, and said the sex had no genius. It robbed her of every vestige of responsibility, and then called her weak. It taught her that every pleasure must come as a favor from men, and when to gain it she decked herself in paint and fine feathers, as she had been taught to do, it called her vain.

It brought tears to our eyes to read this. Tears for all the women who faced this in days of old, and tears for all the women who still face this today. Tears for all the daughters taught to paint themselves and become ornaments. Tears for every time I have heard a man say that women have contributed nothing of value to this world, except the production of a new generation of men. Y'know, men--the half of humanity who, in the eyes of such men, are the only humans who actually accomplish anything of note or worth in this world.

I cry tears for the daughter of a good man, who asked her father recently why there were no women who had done anything great. And I cry tears of joy for that good man, who ever since that conversation has put his little daughter to bed each night with a story of a woman who has done something wonderful, even if society has not chosen to reward her or even acknowledge what she has done. That he would spend a portion of his day rescuing these amazing women from obscurity so that his daughter could live in a world that was not "womanless," well, my eyes fill with tears.

I remember when my own little daughter long ago, laughed when I told her that women in the US had not been given the right to vote until 1920. She said to the effect, "Mom, stop pulling my leg. This is America! Women have always had the right to vote." I rejoiced that she could not imagine that there had ever been a time or place in her country where women had not been considered equals.

But too many of our daughters feel their only worth is as ornaments. They are scared to death to have children, for that might ruin their body shape, and then the men in our pornographic culture would not be interested in them. They are scared to death to breastfeed, lest their breasts lose their porno-style perkiness, and the men in their pornographic cultures--yes, even their husbands--would not be interested in them. They are scared to have vaginal births, lest those stretch out their porno-style "tight" vaginas, and then the men in their pornographic culture--yes, even their husbands--would not be interested in them, and so they have elective C-sections (endangering both themselves and their babies). Our daughters submit to sexual practices that they themselves find disgusting and degrading, lest their men become less interested in them.

Why do we allow men to determine our horizons? Even women who can support themselves financially do this, so it is not simply an economic/financial reasoning underlying this. What is it about a woman that makes her want to contort herself into something small and even something warped in order to keep the attention of men? When that riddle is solved, maybe the day will come that Chapman Catt's quote will no longer ring true. Red State Feminists pray for that day to come.

June 24, 2010 by Red State Gal

  

Poor Ross Douthat: He Said Conservatives Could Be Feminists

Red State Feminists was bemused by the fate of poor Ross Douthat, the token conservative voice on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. In an editorial on 14 June 2010, he argued that the successes of Republican women in the recent primaries meant that it was no longer possible to assert that conservatives could not be feminists.

That poor guy. Not only did he suggests conservatives could be feminist, he stated that the primary victories of Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Nikki Haley, and others was a "testament to the overall triumph of the women's movement." And then he had the audacity to say that the fact that women disagreed on political matters, even that of abortion and health care, was good for feminism!

262 comments followed, the vast majority of which (I counted) suggested that Douthat was an ignoramus if he did not understand that only women who were Democrats and who supported abortion rights, health care, same-sex marriage, etc etc etc could possibly be called feminists. So these conservative women could not possibly be feminists. They were tools of the male establishment, tools of Wall Street, and betrayers of their sex.

No wonder "feminism" is beginning to be seen as a passe term. Feminism no longer means the truly equal partnership between men and women in society . . . Feminism in the US means Blue State Feminism with a narrow and rigid ideological agenda that many women simply do not support. (Seen the polls on abortion rights lately?)

Well, we here at Red State Feminists know better, don't we? Red State Feminism is a true feminism. Our tent is much, much bigger, and much more representative of the attitudes and thinking of the majority of American women. Take our quiz and see. Red State Feminism is the future . . . and Ross Douthat put his finger right on that fact.

I guess that's why those 262 comments were, for the most part, filled with hate and contempt. The future of feminism isn't going to look like the past. A new day of Red State Feminism has dawned . . . thank goodness!

June 17, 2010 by Red State Gal

Did You Know Our Government Thinks Big Pharma is Also Too Big to Fail?

Red State Feminists laud CNN for a sweet little piece of investigative reporting. Back in April, CNN reported that the Department of Justice had concluded that Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, was too big to fail--or, actually, too big to prosecute because if they prosecuted it, it would fail, and the government could not bring itself to have that happen.

According to CNN's reporters, in the fall of 2009, the Justice Department announced that it was launching a criminal case against Pfizer for illegally marketing a pain reliever called Bextra for indications the FDA had not approved and at double the dose the FDA has deemed safe. Pfizer spent a large chunk of change "educating" doctors to serve as "public relations spokespersons" for Bextra. Clear-cut case of fraud? Not so fast . . . According to CNN, this is what happened next:

But when it came to prosecuting Pfizer for its fraudulent marketing, the pharmaceutical giant had a trump card: Just as the giant banks on Wall Street were deemed too big to fail, Pfizer was considered too big to nail.
Why? Because any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence.

Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer's collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders.

"We have to ask whether by excluding the company [from Medicare and Medicaid], are we harming our patients," said Lewis Morris of the Department of Health and Human Services.

So Pfizer and the feds cut a deal. Instead of charging Pfizer with a crime, prosecutors would charge a Pfizer subsidiary, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc. The CNN Special Investigation found that the subsidiary is nothing more than a shell company whose only function is to plead guilty. According to court documents, Pfizer Inc. owns (a) Pharmacia Corp., which owns (b) Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC, which owns (c) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, which in turn owns (d) Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc. It is the great-great-grandson of the parent company.

Public records show that the subsidiary was incorporated in Delaware on March 27, 2007, the same day Pfizer lawyers and federal prosecutors agreed that the company would plead guilty in a kickback case against a company Pfizer had acquired a few years earlier. As a result, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc., the subsidiary, was excluded from Medicare without ever having sold so much as a single pill. And Pfizer was free to sell its products to federally funded health programs.

CNN goes on to comment that Big Pharma now knows it cannot ever really be held accountable under the law. Pfizer lost the equivalent of three months' profit in fines paid to the government, but "dealing with the Department of Justice may just be a cost of doing business."

When Government cannot enforce the law on parties that are Too Big to Hurt, then our whole society is in a world of hurt. Big Finance, Big Pharma . . . is this even a society with the rule of law any longer? And if it isn't, can we really claim we live in a democracy anymore?

June 12, 2010 by Red State Gal

Memorial Day and the Mothers' Monument Movement

Red State Feminists celebrate Memorial Day today, when the country pauses to thank those soldiers who have given their lives to safeguard its future. We now have over 1000 dead in Afghanistan, and for every dead soldier we have many more that are wounded and who may carry those disabilities for the rest of their lives. This is a sacrifice of the highest and most noble order.

But it is also not the only sacrifice of the highest and most noble order. Of course, our police and firefighters also safeguard our country's future, and they are no less heroes than our soldiers.

Are there others that belong to this noble order of sacrifice? How about mothers? Do you know that the United States has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy nations? And that if you look over the course of US history since 1776, that more American women have died incident to childbirth than all of the American soldiers that have ever died in war?

Now think: where would our nation be without mothers bringing forth the next generation of citizens? Without mothers, it would not matter if we had the finest army in the world--it would all be for naught, because the nation would die in a generation. Mothers play as important a role--maybe even more important a role--than our soldiers do. And yet . . . how many monuments and memorials have you seen to soldiers who have died in war? Plenty, I'd guess. How many monuments and memorials have your seen to mothers who died in childbirth? I bet you haven't seen even one. There aren't any in the United States. Did you know that?

Well, maybe that is now going to change. There is a non-profit organization that is seeking support and donations in order to build a national monument to all of the mothers who have died in bringing forth the next generation of Americans. It's called the National Mother's Monument Movement, and we'd like you to take a minute and check out their website. Then forward the link to as many of your friends as you can. (They also have a Facebook group.) Let's start a nationwide movement to truly honor a noble sacrifice for America that has been completely overlooked to date! And why have these women been overlooked? Because it was women, not men, making this sacrifice. Women sacrificing their all is seen as "normal" and "routine." Men sacrificing their all is seen as "remarkable" and "extraordinary."

Red State Feminists are here to say it is time for the double standard to be set aside. A woman's supreme sacrifice is worth as much to the United States of America as a man's supreme sacrifice . . . and it is time to recognize that with the National Mothers' Monument.

May 31, 2010 by Red State Gal

A New Understanding of the Importance of Mothering, Brought to You By the Science of Epigenetics

As you know if you read this blog, Red State Feminists have long been intrigued by the new insights brought to us by the study of epigenetics. In the debate between Lamarck and Darwin, Darwin had the last word--until now. Turns out genes are not everything, after all. Your genes do not completely determine what your body and mind will be like. Attached to our DNA are markers, called epigenetic markers, that turn on and turn off genes. So even if some characteristic is present in our DNA, it may or may not be expressed depending on our epigenetics.

What determines our epigenetics? Well, it is our lived experiences. Yes, Lamarck may have the last word, and the last laugh, after all. There is an epigenome as important as our genome. When our cells divide, the epigenome is passed down as well as the DNA.

The first formation of the epigenome is in the mother's womb, according to a recent article in Discover magazine (June 2010). In experiments with rats, if the mother rat was fed alcohol, the epigenetic marks change drastically. If a mother rat licks her baby, the baby develops a very different set of epigenetic markers than baby rats who were not licked. Even a foster rat who licked a baby rat would imprint epigenetic markers. Rats who were not licked had "methyl caps" over the stretch of their DNA that would encode for receptors in the hippocampus that would help the rat tamp down a cascade of stress response hormones. In other words, because they had not been licked, these baby rats would grow up to be adult rats who would be more adversely affected by stress. These scientists found that the brains taken from suicide victims who had been abused as children had these methyl caps over the same stretch of DNA; but that suicide victims who were not abused as children did not.

Even adult experiences can change the epigenome. When researchers caused adult rats to be depressed, the epigenome changed. They wonder whether depression is, in fact, actually a disease of the epigenome.

Fascinating. But also, in a way, another reminder that the work that mothers do, which is viewed as unskilled and of little importance, is actually crucial. When you support mothers, you support the epigenetic work that they do with their children. The physical health consequences alone have a major impact on our nation; the emotional and psychological health consequences may also be vast. But in nations where mothers are not supported and protected from physical and financial harm, it is their children who will be, in effect, the revenge visited upon that society. If you impoverish and harm mothers, you will wind up with an unhealthy and dysfunctional future--a society's future is, in large measure, in the hands of mothers. It's time for society to wake up to that fact . . .

May 16, 2010 by Red State Gal

The Kagan Nomination's Troubling Message for Women

Red State Feminists have no doubts that Elena Kagan is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.  However, there is another message sent by this nomination, and it is a troubling one.  By age 45, 86% of all American women and 84% of American will have become parents.  The parental status of the male Supreme Court justices matches that figure.  However, if Kagan is confirmed as she should be, then only 1 out of 3 female Supreme Court justices will be mothers.  Unintended as it might be, this nomination confirms in the minds of young women that to achieve at the highest levels, a woman must forfeit motherhood.  That is a truly lamentable message to be sending in the 21st century.

May 11, 2010 by Red State Gal

Sarkozy and the Belgians are Right

Red State Feminists strongly approve of the direction that Sarkozy and the Belgians are taking. No, that's not some new rock group; we're talking about Nicholas Sarkozy, president of France, and the state of Belgium, each of which are attempting to legally ban the public wearing of the niqab and the burqa. The two forms of dress, common among about only 10% of the world's Muslim population, either completely obscure the face (the burqa) or leave only the eyes uncovered (the niqab).

Astoundingly, Amnesty International descries these moves, seeing them as unwarranted state intrusions in the practice of religion. Amnesty International is wrong on this score, and here's why:

The face of a human being is an exquisite representation of their health and wellbeing. The face of a human being is their presence among us, which is why videoconferencing and webcams so popular. When we look upon the face of another human being, we can see if they are afraid or happy; pained or joyous; beaten or unharmed; grief-stricken or content. In other words, in a very real way, the members of a society need to "check each other's faces" for signs that something is amiss--something that the society might need to act upon.

If we see a woman with black eyes and bruises on her face, we know to call the police. If we see a woman with fear written all over her face, we offer to protect her from whatever threatens her. If we see a woman who is disgusted, we inquire what it is in society that is disgusting her, and maybe we can remove that. Conversely, if we see a happy woman, we as a society are more secure.

Furthermore, to be in public with women, but have them be invisible, represents a false reality to the members of society. The faces of women are as much a part of human society as the faces of men. Further erasing the female from the public square is a blow against each and every woman in that society, and has the potential to warp our perceptions and our policymaking.

And yes, in this day of terrorism, there is the obvious security angle as well.

Women can wear any type of dress they wish--head scarves, chadors, nuns' habits, bikinis--you name it. But any dress that covers the face of a woman leaves her unprotected and invisible to that society which has a sacred obligation to protect her and ensure her wellbeing and "see" her.

Nicholas Sarkozy, you have our thanks. Lower house of parliament in Belgium, you have our thanks. Amnesty International, you who have so bravely commented on atrocities concerning women, please rethink your position.

April 30, 2010 by Red State Gal

The Nanny State and the Calvin Capitalists

Red State Feminists, like most Americans, have been treated to the appalling spectacle of our Wall Street billionaires parading before Congress, their self-righteousness on display for all to see, to explain why they are not to blame for anything at all in the onset of this recession. Indeed, in the latest hearings over the revelation that Goldman Sachs bundled worthless debt and sold it to their clients as worthwhile investments, and then bet against their clients when they did buy, Senator John Ensign from Nevada protested when an analogy to Las Vegas casinos was invoked. Goldman Sachs was making the argument that they are just there to facilitate a market for "bets," just like the casinos, and that if you walk into a casino, you know what you are getting into.

Ensign stopped them right there: In Las Vegas, "people know the odds are against them . . . On Wall Street, they manipulate the odds while you're playing the game." Senator Carl Levin continued, "They're buying something from you, and you are betting against it. And you want people to trust you? I wouldn't trust you."

Our Wall Street geniuses (for they are geniuses--they walked away with billions of dollars in bonuses) are just dirty hustlers with an ace securely up their sleeve: they can manipulate the "unbiased" assessment of the value of the products they sell. You don't know that--but they do. They can make horse manure look like gold; and that's exactly what they did.

What happened to the millions of families now struggling with layoffs . . . well, that's just collateral damage incident to The Game, isn't it? After all, it's just a Game. It's the thrill of the bet that's the thing.

Most of us regular people know different. What is a Game to the wealthy financiers who run our economy is bread in our children's stomachs to us. What these Wall Streeters have done to the families of America is obscene. They may be paid in billions now, but there is another life after this one--and I hope they are shown exactly what they did to each and every average American family, and have to suffer what they suffered.

Sometimes conservatives (and Red State Feminists are conservatives, to be sure) rail against the "nanny state" taking over everything, not allowing any freedom. There's some truth to that. But there is another truth that conservatives (except feminist conservatives, that is!) refuse to talk about--how our rich capitalist often act like Calvin, from Calvin and Hobbes. You remember Calvin--the 6 year old boy from hell, who thought only of himself, and thrills, and hurting the little neighbor girls 'cos it was fun, and putting everyone in danger 'cos it was fun . . . remember that sweet little fellow? What we have in this country are Calvin Capitalists, who don't give a hoot about anyone but themselves and their wallets. They could burn up the whole house for the thrills and fun of it . . . after all, they don't have to pick up the pieces, do they? They'll be bailed out by mom and dad.

What we'd like to see is the FULL discussion--how the increasig nanny-ness of the state is a reaction to the increasing Calvin-ing of our top capitalists. Unless those who lead our economy understand that THE PURPOSE OF AN ECONOMY IS TO FEED AND CLOTHE AND EDUCATE THE KIDS, and that any undermining of the ability to take care of the kids is A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, then don't talk to me about our liberties being eroded and the nanny state creeping in. It's the creeps with all the money who have caused this whole debacle. They have no self-control, they have no sense of honor, they have no clue what an economy is actually for.

See, many Red State Feminists are mothers. We see that what the Calvin Capitalists call freedom is actually the freedom to behave like an out-of-control 6 year old boy who doesn't care if anyone gets hurt, as long as he gets his thrills and his money. And we moms know what to do with boys like that!

April 28, 2010 by Red State Gal

Health Care Reform's Breastfeeding Victory

Red State Feminists were thrilled to discover that the health care reform bill has a secret gift for breastfeeding moms who work. Usually when a provision is buried deep within a legislative bill, that's bad news. In this case, it's great news. Finally, America will join the ranks of every civilized country in offering unpaid breastfeeding breaks to women employees for a year from the birth of their child.

If a company has 50 or more employees, they are mandated to allow mothers to take reasonable breaks, and also to provide a private location which is not a restroom for the mothers to express their milk. If a state has even more favorable legislation for the nursing employee, then the state provisions override the federal provisions.

This is sensible, and this is right. We have commented in recent blogposts on the irrationality, insensistivity, and short-sightedness of both Ohio and Utah, where legislators and judges have not protected a woman's right to breastfeed her child or a child's right to be breastfed. Well, Ohio and Utah, time to shape up!

April 22, 2010 by Red State Gal

Gendercide

economist

Red State Feminists were struck by the cover of the most recent issue of The Economist. Their lead article is on the missing women of Asia, primarily in China and India. The normal birth sex ratio is about 106 boy babies born for every 100 girl babies. However, in China that ratio is 121 boy babies born for every 100 girl babies, and in India, it is about 114.

That means, as their cover indicates, that over 100 million women who should be in the population of Asia just aren't there. Sex-selective abortion and female infanticide and neglect are the primary culprits. In these societies, girls are worthless to families. They do not carry on the family name, they are not expected to provide for the parents in old age, and there are costs associated with raising them that will never be repaid. And so girls are culled from the population in these countries.

Of course, when you sow the wind, you reap the East Wind. China will have over 30 million young adult men who will never marry and form households, because the girls who would have grown up to be their wives were done away with. India will have a similar figure. These societies will reap instability and heightened violence as a result.

It is astounding to think that India and China together hold 40% of world population. What effect on the global system will this contempt for women have? We suspect the effect will be strongly negative. Societies cannot sanction such violence against women without also being destroyed in the process.

March 31, 2010 by Red State Gal

Say It Ain't So! Insurance Companies Could Not Be That Evil--Could They?

Red State Feminists are aghast at a recent New York Times article that discusses how the health insurance companies of America intend to respond to the health care reform legislation that has just passed. You may recall that one of the provisions that is supposed to take effect by September 2010, six months from now, is that insurance cannot exclude coverage for your children's pre-existing conditions. Every family we know is thankful for that provision.

But wait a moment--that is not how the health insurance companies interpret this provision:

Insurers agree that if they provide insurance for a child, they must cover pre-existing conditions. But, they say, the law does not require them to write insurance for the child and it does not guarantee the “availability of coverage” for all until 2014.

William G. Schiffbauer, a lawyer whose clients include employers and insurance companies, said: “The fine print differs from the larger political message. If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost.”

Yes, you heard right. Does your child have a pre-existing condition? The company will drop your whole family, rather than have to cover the child by covering the rest of the family. Honestly, how do these "Americans" who work in the insurance industry sleep at night?

Red State Feminists would like to see President Obama and Congress issue an immediate interpretation of the law to forestall these immoral shenanigans. There's some movement in this direction, but the Times characterizes it as iffy. Families wanting protection for their children with pre-existing conditions might have to wait for 2014:

A White House spokesman said the administration planned to issue regulations setting forth its view that “the term ‘pre-existing’ applies to both a child’s access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan.” But lawyers said the rules could be challenged in court if they went beyond the law or were inconsistent with it. Starting in January 2014, health plans will be required to accept everyone who applies for coverage.

Say it ain't so!

March 29, 2010 by Red State Gal

220, and the Heroism of Bart Stupak

Red State Feminists were riveted to CNN Live today and tonight, as the health care reform bill was debated and passed, by a vote of 220 to 211. As you can tell by the numbers, it went down to the wire. There were impassioned speakers on both sides of the aisle, and a raucous gallery of onlookers who didn't help anything.

While Red State Feminists are not 100% happy with this bill, many families we know have prayed for this day--prayed for the day when their children with pre-existing conditions could be covered by health insurance. And many women will now breathe a sigh of relief, for women paid more in health insurance than men, and often just being a mother was considered a preexisting condition. Now families who gazed at their yearly or lifetime limits on insurance coverage with dread due to a serious illness can also breathe easier.

People stuck in dead-end jobs because they knew they couldn't otherwise get health insurance can now move to better jobs without fear of leaving their families defenseless in the face of serious illness or accident.

Could it have been a better bill? Yes. Are we glad it is passed? Yes. There is so much relief tonight among American families, it is palpable in the air.

And why was this bill even necessary? Because of the greed of the insurance companies. It wasn't until their greed and heartlessness reached unprecedented levels that there was enough political will to change things for the better. You cannot trust "naked capitalist" to have a heart--they only have a pocketbook, and the only worth you have is if you add to that pocketbook.

It was really hard, as a Red State Feminist who did not vote for Obama to hear the same Republicans who voted to bail out the Wall Street fatcats refuse to bail out American families. Really, really hard. Wall Street Republicans--ugh! What we need now are Main Street Republicans.

But we did find one hero in all of this--Congressman Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat. He could have been an obstructionist to health care reform, but he stuck to his principles and worked out a compromise with the president. In return for his vote on health care reform, the president will sign an executive order reaffirming that no feeral funds will be used to finance abortion.

Stupak's shining moment came after the first vote on passage. The Republicans, under the guise of the pro-life flag, called for a vote to send the bill back to committee so it could be amended to tighten restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion, claiming Obama's executive order wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Stupak stood up, and told the Republicans that health care reform would supply free prenatal and postnatal care to all pregnant women in the USA, and that if their baby was born with a problem, that baby could not be denied coverage. He asked pro-life Republicans whether this was not, in fact, a truer symbol of commitment to pregnant women, the unborn, and the newly born. Our hearts leapt to hear him cut through the politics and do something real on behalf of women and their children everywhere in the USA. Bart Stupak, hats off to you! You had a magnificent evening, and are worthy of all applause.

My family and I stand a little taller tonight because of health care reform--truly a Red State Feminist issue if there every was one . . . .

March 21, 2010 by Red State Gal

More Important Things in Utah Than Women

Red State Feminists have taken the state of Ohio to task for their abomonable treatment of a nursing mom. Now we turn our eyes west of the Mississippi and find the state of Utah also feels that nursing moms are not very important in the larger scheme of things.

The Utah State Legislature is in session now, and a bill was introduced that would require businesses that employ 50 workers or more to allow a worker who is a mother with a child under one year of age to use paid or unpaid break time to express milk for her child. Businesses are also encouraged, though not required, to provide a clean and private location for such mothers to express their milk.

Must be too radical for the folks in Utah! Even though Intermountain Health Care (the largest provider of health care in the state) and the University of Utah, and the Employers Council of Utah all testified in favor of the bill, the bill was defeated in committee because it was an "employer mandate." Did we need to mention that the committee was overwhelmingly male in composition? We hope the mothers of every one of those male committee members tells their little boy how ashamed they are of them!

As the president of the Employers Council of Utah put it, "I have an aversion to mandates, but this is simply a question of human decency." Furthermore, this council polled their members and found a majority of businesses supported the measure and considered it entirely reasonable!

Oh, and did we mention that the Utah State Legislature passed a bill requiring employers to provide gun lockers for their employees who want to bring loaded weapons to work? But that's an employer mandate that the MEN might like.

Guess we know who the state legislators of Utah view as their most important constituents . . . it sure ain't the half that gave them birth!

February 28, 2010 by Red State Gal

Iraq: Women Inching Forward/Iran: Women Pushed Back

Red State Feminists are interested in the differing trajectories of women in Iraq and Iran. The women in Iraq appear to be inching forward; the women of Iran are being pushed back by a regime trying to curry favor with a disenchanted public.

Iraqi women have certainly suffered as a result of the invasion. Day-to-day security was shattered. Religious sects used control over women to assert their identity. But things appear to be turning around somewhat.

The women of Iraq are guaranteed at least 25% of the seats in the legislature. To date, men have still dominated both the party and the government, with only token positions given to women, and with women having little say in party affairs. But a new women's political party has just been formed to tackle the problems Iraq women face: lower employment, higher poverty rates, lower educational rates. The situation of widows is especially dire.

This new development follows on the heels of a great victory--hopefully not temporary--for the women of Iraq: the suspension of that article of the Constitution that would give religous leaders authority over family law. Family law, as we have noted before, is THE battleground for women in oppressive societies. Iraqi women managed to beat that threat back, though religious parties have not given up the struggle yet. Nevertheless, it looks like the women of Iraq are finding their voice, and inching their way forward--and we wish them well!

We also wish Iranian women well, but the situation for women in Iran does not look hopeful. Scholars have noted that as regimes in traditional societies lose legitimacy, they will try to prop up their legitimacy by pushing women down into an even more subordinate position. Why would that help? It's an attempt to buy off the men of the nation, to build male solidarity against women as a diversionary tactice to dampen male political discontent.

The Iranian regime is playing that old, evil card right now. A new bill is before the legislature, and is backed by the regime: this bill would, among other things, allow Iranian men to take additional wives without the consent of their existing wife(ives), and would restrict the possibility of alimony for women in divorce cases.

Are Iranian women being actively punished for their role in the recent post-election unrest? Perhaps so. But it is also a blatant attempt by the regime to divide the men and women of society. Shame on them!

One commentator on the Iraqi situation said, "Many women who wore the hijab for security reasons are now able to take it off, and many who were not able to drive cars are now starting to drive." We see in these things the first stirrings of spring for women in Iraq. But unfortunately for Iranian women, it's still the dead of winter.

February 25, 2010 by Red State Gal

Selling Afghan Women Down the River Again?

Red State Feminists have noted with interest the new US/Afghan/Pakistani initiative to domesticate the Taliban. Those who are not top commanders will be given amnesty if they lay down their arms. In addition to the amnesty, there is every expectation that Taliban members will rule areas of south and southwest Afghanistan. $100 million has been allocated to pay these men off, so that the Americans can leave "with honor" (i.e., without people actively shooting at them as they retreat, which would be embarrassing) and the Pakistanis can then run the show from behind the scenes.

It's all so predictable. And given the Recession, it is so politically attractive to Americans as to be irresistible. We are basically paying the Taliban to let us leave--and paying them to take the place back. Afghanistan will revert to status quo ante circa September 10, 2001.

It would be easy to just snicker and snark and turn our heads. But then there's the issue of the WOMEN.

Remember them? Remember the women of Afghanistan? Remember how the atrocities visited on them by the Taliban so enraged the world's women that many women supported the invasion of Afghanistan just to allow those women to see a doctor or go to school? Remember how we felt when the girls lined up for school after the invasion, and a few brave sould even took off their burqas?

Do you know that in interviews with Afghanis, basically all the men want the Americans to leave, and basically all the women want the Americans to stay?

Are we really going to betray them one more time? After using them as an excuse for invading, are we going to leave them to the Taliban once more? It makes one sick to the stomach. So while snickering and snarking is understandable, there is a more appropriate feeling to feel: outrage.

Well, at least someone has said, "Wait just a minute!" The CEDAW Committee of the United Nations has issued this statement:

The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women said Friday that “any agreement reached with the Taliban in Afghanistan should include a clear commitment to respect and protect women’s human rights.” The Committee urged the Afghan government and its international allies “to ensure that women representatives are included in the upcoming peace and development dialogues and negotiations with the Taliban.”

The UN body, which consists of 23 experts on women’s rights, also expressed its deep concern at the exclusion of Afghan women from the high decision-making level of the 28 January London Conference, as well as at “the absence of clear strategies to protect women’s rights in the process of the discussions leading to negotiations with representatives of the Taliban.” The Committee pointed out that there are two Security Council Resolutions which underscore the importance of women’s active participation in all peace-building efforts and recovery.*

“Afghan women, who constitute the majority of the Afghan population, must be full and equal participants in decision-making, at all levels, in the process of peace-building, reconciliation, reconstruction and development of their country,” the Committee said. “Their voices and views, as well as capacities, are fundamental and necessary for the sustainable establishment of a prosperous and peaceful Afghanistan, based on the rule of law, democracy, justice, human rights and gender equality.”

AMEN! Now, WHERE ARE THE AMERICAN DIPLOMATS WHO WILL STAND UP AND SAY THE SAME?

February 13, 2010 by Red State Gal

Fractional Parents?

Red State Feminists are very concerned about artificial reproductive technologies. No, we don't mean those techniques that allow husband and wife to conceive their own child. That has been a true blessing and boon to otherwise infertile couples. And we certainly don't mean adoption, which can bring priceless happiness where otherwise sorrow would reign.

No, what we mean is the brave new world eloquently painted for us in a recent New York Times editorial on "fractional parents."

Researchers at the Oregon National Primate Research Center were looking for ways to eliminate diseases that can be inherited through maternal DNA. They developed, as the magazine Nature reported last summer, a kind of swap in which defective DNA from the egg is removed and replaced with genetic material from another female’s egg. The researchers say the procedure is also likely to work on humans.

The result would be a baby with three biological parents — or “fractional parents,” as Adam Kolber, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, calls them.

He mentioned the idea over lunch at The Times, and it provided plenty of grist for debate among law junkies: Could a baby one day have 100 parents? Could anyone who contributes DNA claim visitation rights? How much DNA is enough? Can a child born outside the United States to foreigners who have DNA from an American citizen claim U.S. citizenship?

We have joked for years about "sperm donors," those men who view the contribution of their DNA to a new human being as nothing more than a moment's ejaculation. Those jokes have been derisive jokes, and well deserved. But now we will turn women into those contemtible creatures as well. We'll have the "egg mother," the "DNA mother," and the "womb mother," none of which might have any human relationship with her "child." Great, we women not get to be the men we despise.

And what of the child? No mother gets pregnant in order to abort her baby or give the baby up for adoption. Those things happen, to be sure, but tears are shed because that is not what any woman wants.

But now we will have women who get pregnant or give their DNA kin away just so they can walk away from the human being who they have helped create or nurture.

We are tempted to say women would never do that. But we would be crazy to do so. As one writer put it, "we used to have Mexican divorces, now we'll have Mexican gestations." In a world deeply infected by male bias, we will now have a world run in the image of men. And even motherhood will be in the image of uncommitted ejaculation.

A fractional parent is not a parent--that's the point, isn't it? We now will have children for whom the term "mother" means nothing. Just like we have had several generations of children for whom the term "father" meant nothing.

January 30, 2010 by Red State Gal

The Boys in the Backroom Versus the Women in the Bathroom

Red State Feminists have noted in an earlier blogpost that the issue of health care reform has revealed a split in the Republican Party along gender lines. While we had our issues with particulars of health care reform, the overall goal is certainly feminist. The health care industry systematically discriminates against women, and it is women who are the caregivers for the young, the elderly, and the infirm. When you don't care about the health of the caregivers and the lifegivers, you just don't care about the health of Americans.

So imagine our delight when we came across this little video, less than a minute long:

So true, so true . . . The Boys in the Backroom Versus the Women in the Bathroom. You just can't help but root for the women in the bathroom! Women's experiences as caregivers and lifegivers gives them a common sense and a common purpose that the men just don't have. Time to make the Ladies' Room the real headquarters of health care reform in Congress!

January 27, 2010 by Red State Gal

A New Year, A New Blog Page: The Awful Dockers' Ad

Red State Feminists wish you a Happy New Year, and welcome to a fresh blog page! Our posts from 2008 and 2009 are still available here, but the file size was getting too big and not loading very quickly, so we thought a fresh page for the new year might be welcome.

It would be lovely to start the year out with good news, but alas, the first thing on our agenda this year is a really off-base ad by Dockers, a brand of pants for men and boys. Here's the ad:

dockers ad

Isn't that a delightful ad? The mixed messages practically slap you in the face. If we want little old ladies to be escorted across the street, we need men to be dominant over women. After all, if they are not dominant over women, they will feel no responsibility to little old women or to anyone else, for that matter. Cities crumble and children misbehave because men are no longer dominant over women. Women no longer get doors opened for them.

Gag. While Red State Feminists certainly do believe that the involvement of men is necessary to the overcoming of the world's problems, it has been the exclusion of women by men in the solving of these problems that has made them persistent.  It is men listening to women, being motivated to include women as full and equal partners, that is the cure for the world's ills.  This ad suggests otherwise--it suggests the desirability of male leadership OVER women--a recipe for continuing societal dysfunction.

We need men to wear their own pants and women to wear their own pants or skirts. In other words, we need partnership between the two halves of society--not domination of one by the other. In fact, this Dockers' ad is just a recipe for more of the same that we have had throughout human history, no matter how they dress it up by talking about "heroes."

Red State Feminists complained. if you want to complain, too, here's the link to do it.

January 20, 2010 by Red State Gal