Just Call me a Conscientious Objector in the Mommy Wars
Posted: June 26, 2012 Filed under: War on Women, We are so F'd, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights, worker rights | Tags: Mommy Wars Redux 24 CommentsI have no idea why this war even needs to be fought. I also object to the frame that redefines feminism as something it isn’t and then casts it in the catalyst role.
Frankly, my lifestyle choices are no one’s damn business. I also don’t want to hear any whining about put upon stay at home mothers or selfish working moms or whatever freaking black and white witchy stereotype folks dream up and embrace. This would include the appalling cartoon I used for this post. There seems to be a media obsession at the moment with painting women into corners and guilt tripping them for which ever corner they wind up in. Women are even participating in the self immolation. We’ve been regaled by lectures like this one on “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All“. Like we need some other woman defining what “all” is for the rest of us. We also don’t need a bunch of self righteous right wing wind bags that continue to blame all of the world’s problems on mothers.
It’s enough to make Betty Friedan spin in her grave.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel took up the keyboard today at WAPO with a reminder that most working mothers aren’t struggling to “have it all”. They are struggling to feed their kids and provide homes. For some reason, a lot of folks seem to think there’s all these great, supportive, bread-winning men out there just dying to reproduce and do right by their wives and families. I frankly don’t recommend marriage to any woman. Most husbands are bigger pains-in-the asses than colicky babies. A lot of them can’t even hold down jobs these days and then there’s the entire emotional trip that goes along with marriage. You know the TV sitcom stint that goes like this. Asking men to do the right thing by their families puts them in the position of being the oppressed, hypernagged hubbie who goes to work and takes it out on the resident working women and stirs up the other men in one big woe-is-me session. There’s a lot of reality out there that these BS narratives miss. Even the best intentioned man can get pulled back into the old boys club after a number of years of marriage and fatherhood. The media, their jobs and the entertainment industry absolutely empower them to be reckless with their family relationships.
This is the reality that faces millions of working women. More than 70 percent of all mothers and more than 60 percent of mothers with children under 3 are in the workforce. Two-thirds of them earn less than $30,000 a year. Nine of 10 less than $50,000. In the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson’s powerful image, “They catch the early bus,” or, in Vasquez’s case, the late bus. They work out of need, whether they want to or not. Half are their family’s primary breadwinner.
These mothers don’t have the luxury of flexible time or the ability to leave when a child is in trouble or sick. Most can’t afford to take unpaid sick leave to care for their children — and many would lose their jobs if they did, despite the federal law guaranteeing unpaid leave. Many work in jobs — as home-care workers, farm workers, cleaning people — that have scant protection of minimum wage and hours standards. Many cobble together two or three part-time jobs. Child care gets done by grandmothers, neighbors or simply the TV.
Okay, so this is the deal. The problem is not with WOMEN. The problem is with the way “work” and “income” is structured in this country. It doesn’t change because most men in power don’t want it to change. Things used to be different when most businesses were family run and family owned or when most families lived off farms. Working for some one else in this country but a few enlightened companies basically means placing your family outside your major time commitments. That is not the way it should be.
Here’s something that caught my eye as I thought about this. This is written by a journalist as a response to the articles run by The Atlantic recently in the vein of mommy wars. I like it because it states what I find is obvious. Feminism is about finding options and accepting and empowering women’s choices. It’s not about pitting our various roles against each other. Every woman should make her choice. There is no sainthood or martyrdom prize for whatever that choice is so can’t we just knock it off now?
The average American worker gets something like 14 days of paid vacation. In my school, you’d use up ten of those taking care of your kids on teacher professional days, then tack on a couple more for kids getting sick. When you do the simple math, the American workplace seems utterly inhumane in its unwillingness to adapt to the fact that women make up half of all workers.
Economist Claudia Goldin has made a career out of studying what she calls the “career cost of family.” The industries that thrive and hold onto talented women are the ones that figure out how to minimize the cost of taking time off for your family. It’s not all that complicated. They take advantage of technologies to let parents work at home or be more efficient, they schedule shifts, they minimize face time, they let people do what Sheryl Sandberg says she does: go home at 5:30 and pick up again later after her kids are in bed.
Feminism was about making women’s lives less constrained and giving them more choices. Right now, most women have none — not because they are spoiled and unrealistic and want to do lunchtime yoga, but because they are working hard to support their families and everyone is colluding in the fiction that they have nothing else on their minds. I return to a modest proposal I made last week in Slate, inspired by Slaughter: Mothers, fathers, don’t lie to your employers about the kid things you have to (or want to) do during the day. If you are taking a kid to the doctor, say so. Ditto for parent teacher conferences or the school play. At this point, honesty would be a radical act.
One of the bottom lines to me is that if men would actually do something about making the country, the work place, and their family more children friendly, we wouldn’t be having these problems or this discussion. Our situation exists because men do not treat women or children as anything valuable unless there’s something at the time that they need from them. There are work environments out there that are family friendly. They are very successful. They got that way because the men in charge made them that way to attract and maintain talent. They attract men and women to work for them that value families. There are far too few companies that do that because there’s a lot of men that get away with ignoring their families. They’re rewarded for it. European countries do not do this. France doesn’t do it. Germany doesn’t do it. None of the Scandinavian countries do it. It’s an American value to fuck over you family because you have to work.
The other interesting thing in all of this is the role of birth control and the empowerment of controlling when you have children. Economist Claudia Goldin calls this The Quiet Revolution. I have no doubt that there is an equal role in all the re-ignition of the mommy wars with the attack on birth control. Reproductive rights is essential to women’s freedom and children’s well being. It’s also necessary to the transformation that could occur in the work place if more women got into positions of power and more men were motivated by family concerns and demanded the work place empower them to parent. Taking away this important right means undoing women’s autonomy.
All of this just continues to impress upon me how little this country actually cares about its children. There seems to be this silly idea that if you just strand a woman at home with children and giver her a husband with a paycheck then all the problems of the world will just fade away. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Just reading literature on depression and unhappiness should put this damaging canard to bed. Again, look at that damn cartoon up there. We need to be a society that supports family choices and provides resources to all our children to be in the environment in which each child thrives. This will never happen in less our institutions stop prioritizing the wrong things and until every one refuses to participate in the Mommy Wars.
There’s still something very wrong with Kansas
Posted: June 25, 2012 Filed under: abortion rights, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights 6 Comments
Instituting religious doctrine is something that just shouldn’t happen in this country. Yet, many Kansas legislators just want a theocracy. What’s the matter with Kansas, still? Do they confuse acorns with trees and scrambled eggs with fried chicken too? Don’t women deserve to keep their medical records out of the hands of their state governments?
On Friday, the Kansas Board of Healing Arts refused to reinstate the medical license of Dr. Ann Neuhaus, who provided second opinions to abortion provider Dr. George Tiller between 1999 and 2006. Kansas law requires a second opinion to perform some late-term abortions. Neuhaus’ license was revoked by an administrative court in February following a 2006 complaint from the anti-choice group Operation Rescue alleging she did not take the safety of teenage patients seriously in 2003 because of the short length of patient record files for her cases.
But the sparseness of her patient notes was an attempt to protect their privacy from the anti-choice crusade of a state official. Around the time Neuhaus performed the abortions, the Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline was investigating abortion providers — going so far as to subpoena medical records and discuss those cases on right-wing television shows. Indeed, Neuhaus specifically cites Kline’s “investigation” while arguing her exams met accepted care standards:
She…testified that she didn’t put more details in her records to protect patients’ privacy. After the hearing, she said she was “unapologetic” for that, noting the Kansas attorney general’s office began investigating abortion providers, including Tiller, starting early in 2003, and in 2006, Fox television’s Bill O’Reilly strongly criticized Tiller and discussed a few of his patients’ cases on his program.
Kline faces an ongoing ethics complaint case alleging he “lied to the Kansas Supreme Court, misled a Johnson County grand jury investigating an abortion provider and discussed an ongoing case on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’” that throw weight behind Neuhau’s fears, but whether or not she could get a fair hearing was doubtful. Gov. Sam Brownback (R) recently appointed former Operation Rescue attorney Richard Macias to the board, and one expert witnesses called by the Board testified there were no cases in which providing an abortion could be beneficial to a patient’s mental health.
While Neuhaus plans to appeal, the entire saga paints a stark portrait of how pervasive anti-choice influence is at some state levels — and the untenable position that influence means for health care providers. Then again, perhaps it’s no surprise a state that seriously debated legislation that would force doctors to misinform their patients about health risks would put an anti-choice agenda before the well-being and medical privacy of it’s citizens.
Republican state legislators are just dying to get all women’s constitutional rights put before those Opus Dei freaks on SCOTUS.
More information on this from RH Reality Check.
According to the Associated Press, Neuhaus was hoping to have her full medical license restored after spending years only allowed to provide limited medical care for charity work. Instead, an ongoing investigation into 11 patient cases obtained by Operation Rescue became the center of a movement to have her license stripped all together.
The cases all involved girls who sought abortions due to mental health issues from depression to suicide, with an age range from 17 years old to as young as 10. The board alleged that Neuhaus’s exams were not thorough enough based on the available records provided, and that her follow up care was inadequate, as she did not recommend counseling or hospitalization afterwards.
Neuhaus called the accusations ridiculous. She said she refused to put too much identifying information in the records because she knew that they could eventually end up in the hands of outsiders and violate the patients’ privacy. As for abortions not being necessary, Neuhaus found that laughable as well.
“To even claim that isn’t medically necessary qualifies as gross incompetence,” said Neuhaus. “Someone’s 10 years old, and they were raped by their uncle and they understand that they’ve got a baby growing in their stomach and they don’t want that. You’re going to send this girl for a brain scan and some blood work and put her in a hospital?”
Has the Time Come to Break Up the Union?
Posted: June 25, 2012 Filed under: U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: federal aid to states, federal taxes, fiscal transfers, Medicaid, seceding from the union, unemployment insurance 41 CommentsVia Matt Yglesias at Slate, this map–originally posted at The Economist last year– shows fiscal transfers from wealthier states to poorer ones by means of taxes collected by the federal government and then distributed to states as Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and so on.
As Yglesias points out many of the states that get more back than they put in in taxes tend to be more conservative, but that’s not always the case. States that are lower in population also pay less in taxes and get more back. For example, North Dakota and Iowa are experiencing a great deal of growth and prosperity at present, but they still get more held from taxpayers in more populous states like New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
Yglesias points out that the situation here in the U.S. is different from the Eurozone:
Two key points I would make about this in relation to the eurozone are that these transfers are both really big and extremely persistent. Mississippi and Alabama have lagged behind the rest of the nation in economic development for a very long time and I see no particular reason to believe they’ll ever catch up.
Making the obvious mental leap, Derek Thompson writes at The Atlantic:
Unlike the United States, the euro zone collects a teensy share of total taxes at the EU level and has no legacy of permanent fiscal transfers from the richer countries, like Germany, to the poorer countries, like Greece.
Would wealthy, populous states like New York and Texas be better off establishing their own currencies, Thompson asks?
On their own, they could spend a lot more. Today, the states can’t borrow money. But on their own, the richer ones might be able to borrow cheaply enough to eventually run persistent small deficits to make up for whatever infrastructure, education, and per capita health care spending they were receiving from Washington. Once they got in on NAFTA, they could trade freely with the other states as the dollar zone disintegrating into history.
Perhaps the northeastern states should secede and form their own union. Quite a prosperous country could be made up of MN, IL, IN, OH, PA, NY, MA, NH, ME, VT, DE, RI, and CT. Only IN, VT, and ME would be on the poor side. Other areas of the country could form their own coalitions.
Perhaps a more interesting question is whether the possibility of this happening might stimulate enough concern among conservatives in Congress for them to stop fooling around with the wars on women and science and start doing something about the real problems we’re facing in this country?
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Monday Reads (with SCOTUS updates)
Posted: June 25, 2012 Filed under: abortion rights, Economy, morning reads | Tags: individual mandate, Mississippi's last standing abortion clinic, Newspapers, public interest, state capitalism, Vagina Rupert Murdoch 21 CommentsGood Morning!
The last abortion clinic in Mississippi may be the latest victim of the christofascist republican war on women. It may become the first state in the union where women have no access to this constitutional right. Take a look at the pictures at the link and tell me its not a christofascist movement akin to the religious fundamental crazies that plague underdeveloped nations. Why can’t we just export these creeps to Afghanistan instead of soldiers and money?
Beginning July 1, all abortion-clinic physicians must have admitting privileges at a local hospital under a law passed by the Republican-led Legislature and signed by Republican Governor Phil Bryant in April. At the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the state’s sole remaining clinic providing elective abortions, none of the three physicians who perform the procedure has been granted those privileges.
Mississippi may become the first U.S. state without a dedicated abortion clinic if the Jackson facility fails to come into compliance. That would mark the most visible victory for the anti-abortion movement, which has fought to abolish the procedure in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing a woman’s right to have one.
“Roe v. Wade said that women have a right to an abortion in the sense that a state can’t deny or criminalize it, but there was no guarantee of access,” said Wendy Parmet, associate dean at Northeastern University School of Law in Boston. “States can’t create legal barriers or penalties, but they can make it practically really, really difficult.”
Betty Thompson, a spokeswoman for the clinic in the state capital, said the doctors have applied to seven area hospitals for admitting privileges. All three are already board certified in obstetrics and gynecology, as the new law also requires, she said.
I’ve long argued that Rupert Murdoch should be deprived of access to the public airwaves. He’s a threat to the Public Interest.Here’s some more opinion on that via the UK Guardian. Can the Brits get rid of this menace? Can any democracy afford a corporate monopoly on information that functions as a propaganda tool for the personal interests of its owner?
In the UK, there is currently more choice, but the economics of news are undergoing a fundamental revolution, so nothing should be taken for granted. There are other powerful media organisations in the UK, including the BBC. In order to gauge the potential threat, try asking seven critical questions:
a) Does it have strong internal governance?
b) Is it effectively externally regulated?
c) Is it subject to, and does it comply with, the law?
d) Is it subjected to normal scrutiny by press and parliament?
e) Does it overtly try to exert public political influence?
f) Does it privately lobby over regulation or competition issues?
g) Does it actively work to expose the private lives of politicians or other public figures?
On such a scorecard, the BBC would score one out of seven – in the sense that only one of the issues, f), is engaged. News Corp would score seven.
Richard Pomfret–a Professor of Economics at Adelaide University–has written a new book on a widely accepted compromise between aggregate prosperity and distributional equality. He discusses his thesis at VOXEU.
It is in this spirit that my new book, The Age of Equality, argues that we are still experiencing the long-term consequences of the industrial revolution of the 1700s, and that the current state of that process involves a widely accepted compromise between aggregate prosperity and distributional equality.
Unlike political revolutions that can be dated to 1789 or 1917, the industrial revolution does not have a precise date. However, by the early 1800s it had clearly taken hold in parts of northwest Europe. The new industrial production involved factories with division of labour (exemplified by Adam Smith’s pin factory on the UK’s £20 banknotes) which employed increasingly capital-intensive techniques and applied the results of scientific, or at least casual empirical, observation. It was associated with risk-taking entrepreneurs and mobile workers, who responded to price incentives and were rewarded if they made the right decisions. The process was opposed by those enjoying privileges in the pre-industrial economy, e.g. inherited monarchs with absolute power, landowners with serfs or guild members.
Countries adopting the new system enjoyed unprecedented long-term economic growth. They sought and won global markets for their products so that they could expand the division of labour and capital-intensity of their factories, and they established global empires. Success was no secret. The new system spread across Europe, regions settled by Europeans, and a few other places (notably Japan).
Change was resisted by the ancien régime or by imperial rulers. The 1800s were an Age of Liberty because successful economies were those in which people enjoyed sufficient freedom to respond to economic incentives. The pressure to allow such freedom culminated in the 1910s, with the collapse of the great dynastic empires centred in Saint Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, Constantinople and Peking.
Yet, even as living standards increased, opposition to unbridled capitalism strengthened. In all of the high-income countries there is evidence of income inequality peaking around the first decade of the twentieth century.
- In the US, progressives pushed to reduce the power of the rich by antitrust legislation and to protect the poor by social policies.
- In Europe, socialists’ challenge to capitalism was more fundamental.
The great experiment of the twentieth century was a competition between economic systems over which could best balance prosperity and equality.
That was the case until 1989. Then, unbridled capitalism began to take root in Europe and North America. This is not the case, however, in other parts of the world. Here’s a reminder of more folks that are adopting a different approach.
The era of free-market triumphalism has come to a juddering halt, and the crisis that destroyed Lehman Brothers in 2008 is now engulfing much of the rich world. The weakest countries, such as Greece, have already been plunged into chaos. Even the mighty United States has seen the income of the average worker contract every year for the past three years. The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think-tank, which has been measuring the progress of economic freedom for the past four decades, saw its worldwide “freedom index” rise relentlessly from 5.5 (out of 10) in 1980 to 6.7 in 2007. But then it started to move backwards.
The crisis of liberal capitalism has been rendered more serious by the rise of a potent alternative: state capitalism, which tries to meld the powers of the state with the powers of capitalism. It depends on government to pick winners and promote economic growth. But it also uses capitalist tools such as listing state-owned companies on the stockmarket and embracing globalisation. Elements of state capitalism have been seen in the past, for example in the rise of Japan in the 1950s and even of Germany in the 1870s, but never before has it operated on such a scale and with such sophisticated tools.
State capitalism can claim the world’s most successful big economy for its camp. Over the past 30 years China’s GDP has grown at an average rate of 9.5% a year and its international trade by 18% in volume terms. Over the past ten years its GDP has more than trebled to $11 trillion. China has taken over from Japan as the world’s second-biggest economy, and from America as the world’s biggest market for many consumer goods. The Chinese state is the biggest shareholder in the country’s 150 biggest companies and guides and goads thousands more. It shapes the overall market by managing its currency, directing money to favoured industries and working closely with Chinese companies abroad.
State capitalism can also claim some of the world’s most powerful companies. The 13 biggest oil firms, which between them have a grip on more than three-quarters of the world’s oil reserves, are all state-backed. So is the world’s biggest natural-gas company, Russia’s Gazprom. But successful state firms can be found in almost any industry. China Mobile is a mobile-phone goliath with 600m customers. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation is one of the world’s most profitable chemical companies. Russia’s Sberbank is Europe’s third-largest bank by market capitalisation. Dubai Ports is the world’s third-largest ports operator. The airline Emirates is growing at 20% a year.
So, you can see my read suggestions are a little esoteric today. There’s not much going on. Folks are waiting to see if SCOTUS announces its decision on the Affordable Health Care Act and Arizona’s immigration law. Folks are also waiting for congress to act on the doubling of student loan rates and the highway bill. Drama is coming this week.
I just have to add one more. Jimmy Carter wrote an op-ed today in the NYT about America’s Shameful Human Rights Record. Wasn’t he part of the hoopla over the lightbringer about 8 years ago? Is this Nobel Peace Laureate lecturing another? Wow. How times change. He names no names but the implications seem pretty clear to me.
THE United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.
Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated abroad, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended. This development began after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has been sanctioned and escalated by bipartisan executive and legislative actions, without dissent from the general public. As a result, our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues.
While the country has made mistakes in the past, the widespread abuse of human rights over the last decade has been a dramatic change from the past. With leadership from the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 as “the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” This was a bold and clear commitment that power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people, and it established equal rights of all people to life, liberty, security of person, equal protection of the law and freedom from torture, arbitrary detention or forced exile.
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Update:
The Supreme Court Announces Arizona Immigration Decision Today.
US Supreme Court (#SCOTUS) ruling upholds ‘show me your papers’ provision of Arizona immigration law. Details soon http://www.bbcnews.com
From the SCOTUS AZ decision: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”
Tom Goldstein of Scotusblog: “On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for Obama Admin. It got almost everything it wanted.
note: the link to Scotusblog above goes to a live discussion on the decisions being released today …
OTHER Decisions:
The MT campaign finance case, 11-1179, is summarily reversed. The vote is 5-4, the majority opinion (one page long) is per curiam, Justice Breyer writes for the dissenters. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf
National Journal
@nationaljournalSCOTUS: “There can be no serious doubt” that Citizens United ruling applies to Montana state law. http://njour.nl/MKLeXI
Miller and Jackson, juvenile life without parole cases, have been decided. Life w/o parole sentences for juveniles who commit murder are unconstitutional. Justice Kagan wrote the opinion. Vote is 5-4. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf
No #HCRdecision from #SCOTUS today. Stay tuned for Thursday. It appears to be going down to the wire.








Recent Comments