Well, I did graduate--years ago--but the ever busy life of a community activist in very extreme times was what has kept me from regularly updating this site..until now. I've am also amazed at South Dakota and then Louisiana's decision to virtually roll back the clock on women's reproductive rights. They need to hear from us feminists ASAP--and we need to convince other states that they WILL be held accountable for even trying to pass such retrograde laws. Of course the politicians aren't the only ones who harbor retrograde views of women and our public agency.
The mass media spends a considerable amount of time attempting to tell my generation (especially) we are not feminists and/or could never possibly measure up to the exploits of previous activist generations even if we attempted the feat, but I am pleased to place myself in the third wave of American feminism and wear that identity with the pride it fully deserves. As with other social justice movements, there is no singular way to be a feminist, and there are as many feminisms as there are people.
One of the most influential feminist theories for my generation was Riot Grrrl. Formed in the late 1980’s by punk feminists on the west and east coasts wanting to combine radical theory with activism and culture, but feeling alienated by the domination of second-wave culture (which unfortunately tended to talk down to younger generations by the 1980’s, as opposed to mentoring us), these women (from bands such as Babes in Toyland, Bikini Kill..etc) began communicating with themselves and other concerned individuals who felt the same way but wanted to change this situation with direct action via autonomous cells that networked informally from grassroots zines. Riot Grrrl functioned in relative obscurity from mainstream media attention until 1991’s release of “Nevermind” and Kurt Cobain’s public endorsement of feminism and Riot Grrrl. Suddenly, news outlets who had simply presumed my generation was apathetic and anti-feminist had to concede their stereotypes were just that.
Instantaneously, news reports were filled with accounts of the Pacific Northwest. If the complimentary copy was not all that glowing (as evidenced by people who alternately tried to dismiss riot grrrl or fashion it into their own preconceived notions of activism and empowerment) it did reach outside the region to myself and other listeners who were more than ready for the message. I did not have to board a time machine back to the late 1970’s to become an activist, my work today was no less important than that of my predecessors. I also had an obligation to speak out solely under my own terms and not be afraid to challenge elders who were stuck in their own ways.
As the generation to grow up under Roe, Title IX, pregnancy non-discrimination, and equal pay laws, we enjoyed an admittedly better position than previous feminist activists, but we also knew the same policies were under continuous assault from conservative forces and even some other feminists did not understand/want to understand the inherently interconnected nature of racism, classism, homophobia and ableism. Our standpoint enables an activism inherently unavailable to earlier generations. Due to uncertainty whether the chapters have been active or dormant, I have taken down both the national and Texas chapter pages (it also helps conserve valuable free server space) but will republish them if there is an outpouring of information.
Reproductive rights are currently under siege by the Bush administration who has made no secret of their intention to install a theocracy. Access to abortion is not their only ‘reproductive rights’ target because the right wing is also removing contraceptive access, realistic sexuality education and the very social services they tout for the ‘babies’ they insist must be brought into this world. Attending an “abstinence-only” high school, I saw several friends (some of whom were once anti-choice themselves) become pregnant (which supposedly does not happen if the policies are actually 100 percent effective), give birth and realize it’s much easier to point fingers at women who seek reproductive healthcare than to actually wake up and walk in their shoes. Suddenly, it became clear that reproductive rights are used for socioeconomic survival, not convenience or whim.
Also not respectful is the anti-choice lie that first wave opposition to abortion meant some of history’s most famous feminists would be with them today on this and other issues. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton etc lived in a time when ALL surgery was dangerous and mortality rates from septic conditions were not uncommon (no understanding of germ theory/importance of antiseptic procedures, and no antibiotics), therefore making their position reasonable. Had they correctly foresaw development of antiseptic procedure and antibiotic research, in addition to the continued mortality of women continuing to seek out illegal procedures when the state paradoxically restricted sterile offerings under the questionable ‘gender role’ goal (fetal life was never a concern of the legislatures), all of the women would have promptly changed their own position (as did Margaret Sanger, whose birth control beginnings were motivated by witnessing the agony of illegal abortion). As visionary as these women were, they were also reacting to a specific medical infrastructure which we do not have to contend with in our own time.
If they are still eager to challenge me after this essay, I encourage some of these self-described 'feminists for life' to undergo abdominal surgery of any kind exactly according to 19th/early 20th century opperating conditions (think of it as historical reenactment) with historical follow-up care and then see how well they fare. Again, being confronted with three-dimensional reality is the best cure for those spoiled and naive individuals. As an added bonus, the world may also not have to deal with them anymore when the afforementioned medical limitations ultimately seal their fate.
These same first wave feminists were also products of their own time when ‘good’ women did not talk about anything sexual, which amounts to a veritable death sentence in the age of AIDS. I don't find dying from AIDS and other STDS sexually empowering in anyway but then again I actually paid attention to early women's history books and seminars, understanding that the medical-health sittuation these women were in was not enviable or conductive to social change. Amidst all of the yelling, opponents forget that pregnant women were also once required to leave their jobs (even if the pregnancy resulted from rape/incest) Maternity benefits were non-existent, and you were in deep trouble if you were single. Most of us are educated enough to understand that pre-1973 was by no means pro-family or pro-woman. An unwanted pregnancy could starve a woman and/or her family, and single women who were caught had to leave town for special homes. When conservatives reminisce for the good old days, they are really pushing for a return of uncertainty and entrapment for women. Indeed, it was pro-choicers who were also at the front of the anti-rape, and pregnancy non-discrimination movements.
Women with disabilities (like myself ) do not consider our pro-choice activism a contradiction to our multiple identities because when the anti-choice movement features us, it only is as one dimensional victims---as opposed to people who lead rich and diverse lives with the appropriate accommodations/modifications. Plus, if I am trying to control my neurological system, why would I not want self-control of my reproductive system as well? Reliance on the aforementioned "medical" disability model is not at all respectful of human life, instead infantilizing us as objects for somebody else’s convenience. Such people do not want to recognize us as three dimensional co-workers, community members etc...
Real feminists also believe that motherhood should be one option in a long list of choices for women. That openness is also another reason why the two women would not today be aligned with the anti-choice movement. Both recognized the ability to bear children should not be confused with a governmental and or societal mandate to do so. Involuntary motherhood was and is the hallmark of a society that justifies hatred and intolerance of women's equality and dignity. How else to explain why Susan Carpenter McMillan (yes, the rightwing "pro-life feminist" who helped Paula Jones)"suddenly realized it was sexist men who were the movers and shakers in a supposedly egalitarian movement? Apparently all of the talk about women being exploited really was a transparent projection of their own movement politics.
Some of these centers also try and attract women through the adoption of names that sound "woman-centric" such as "The Women's Pavillion" or (in my college town) "The Susan B. Anthony Women's Center" but conveniently forget to tell prospective clients (again!) that they do not provide reproductive health services and are in fact anti-feminist because they restrict women's choices through a narrow interpretation of what a "proper" woman should and should not be doing. They are just as sexist and odious as those centers making no pretense about their political and cultural alliances---because both are dedicated to harming women.
While I personally dislike undergoing surgery as a predictable end result of my having been born with hydrocephalus, I believe that it is adamantly important to have reproductive choice. Many of my friends have chosen various options when faced with pregnancy, all of them correct for their individual lives. As personhood at conception is a personal belief (rather than fact), freedom of choice is among the most traditional things that can exist in a democracy.
Interestingly enough, anti-choice definitions of life fall short of women---implying that a pregnant woman is incapable of making a rational decision about something so personal. Whether she keep the baby or abort, all women should be free of any kind of coercion or manipulation. Equating reproductive freedom with the ability to fit into designer clothes or keep a boyfriend trivializes women's decisions. Several "Pro Life Feminist" groups fall into this trap by maintaining that women's power comes from bearing children involuntary, although the dignity of born women is intentionally ignored. They believe that pregnancy temporarily places a ceiling on women's ability for rational thought. Women in their brochures and speeches are portrayed as innocents (which is a small improvement over the name calling of the right) and good intentioned, but never in control of their own reproductive life. The biology is destiny argument lost much of it's steam among women when we realized that "protective laws" recognizing women's "special" needs resulted in unequal treatment for equal work. Because women's anatomy needed so much protecting, employers decided it was easier to hire men for the best paying jobs.
In 1998, I finally got the chance to see HBO's "If These Walls Could Talk", and it's quite eye opening.(due to some bloody stuff, I strongly recommend NOT eating while seeing this) Although two women post-Roe chose different options, both are pro-choice because they recognize the importance of their being able to make a decision they can live with. Women must be allowed to control their own reproductive organs. This includes the right to give birth, freedom from sterilization abuse, and accessible contraceptives. Too often, there is a misconception that Pro-choicers like myself hate children and/or hate mothers. This couldn't be further from the truth.
We only want teenagers to know that babies require lots of attention (even when you tire of it) and is not like a doll or web page graphic. It requires lots of time and money. Babies lose some of their cuteness when you have to take care of it while your friends are out shopping and planning for college (not every college has a daycare program)Having a baby to "keep" a boyfriend is not always the best option, in the event of a breakup, child support collection remains difficult in several states. Teenage pregnancy is not the idyllic fantasy (where teens are happy and loved) the right wants to convince them.
I object to the under funding of day care centers, inadequate sexuality education (The US has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates of any westernized nation) and the cutting of prenatal care. Some legislators believe that pregnant women who seek public assistance are parasites and therefore undeserving of aid. Once again, concern for "human life" is narrowly construed to exclude born children and their families. Also unlike Europe, we have inadequately funded social welfare programs. (pro family conservatives love to dismantle or under fund these programs on the grounds that low income families are parasites!) and higher levels of Abortion restriction and clinic violence.
Many families do not have the luxury of a nanny or house spouse, both parents must work to make ends meet. Women should not have to give their babies up to ensure a higher standard of living for them and or the children they do keep. By the U.S. Department of Health and Human services own figures, the average welfare payment is well bellow the minimum estimated costs for living.(These figures have probably become more frightening post-"welfare reform". Although it permits abortions for rape and incest, the Hyde Amendment still has a chilling effect on low income women's bodily integrity because it only prevents some women from receiving a medical abortion, and selectively ignores the truly determined who maim/kill themselves with illegal abortion. Because the state has convinced itself women's bodies can be controlled, it does not consider illegal abortions an attack on so-called pre-born human life!!
If women's dignity is to be preserved, we must begin organizing now. Before the 1960's-1970's,there was no National Right to Life Committee, the "concern" is thinly veiled misogyny. Although women (and the "unborn child") were dying from unsanitary and dangerous methods, there was no protest from the so called protectors of human life. The "anti-lifers" were (and still are!!)the one's seeking to protect life. Currently, there are numerous books testifying about Pre-Roe conditions, we do NOT need another generation's experiences. Forced pregnancies are the ultimate disrespect for human life.
Amidst all of the yelling, opponents forget that pregnant women were once required to leave their jobs (even if the pregnancy resulted from rape/incest) Maternity benefits were non-existent, and you were in deep trouble if you were single. Most of us are educated enough to understand that pre-1973 was by no means pro-family or pro-woman. An unwanted pregnancy could starve a woman and/or her family, and single women who were caught had to leave town for special homes. When conservatives reminisce for the good old days, they are really pushing for a return of uncertainty and entrapment for women. Indeed, it was pro-choicers who were also at the front of the anti-rape, and pregnancy non-discrimination movements.
An insider's long and complicated relationship
Although I never voted for George W. and am not surprised he has declared war on women's reproductive health, I am enraged the Supreme Court saw it fit to appoint a man president who was not elected by the people and now has the power to endanger women's lives. I personally like the idea of donating in W's name, but a good old- fashioned march on the Capitol could not be beat in terms of radical feminist activism. I had received previous march invitations for various social movements, but the reality of a anti-choice president, congres and Supreme Court facilitated a sense of emergency which truthfully would not have been there if Clinton or another pro-choice president were in office. While on a spring break Mexico vacation with my family, I was also uncomfortably aware that at any moment myself and other college students could be visiting Mexico under far more frightening circumstances (as my mother's generation did).
I attended the March for Women's Lives with FMLA members from my school and the other university. We marched past the White House and demanded that George W. Bush stop his war against women both domestically and internationally. Adding to the march, we were addressed by Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Although I had a blast at the march, I still feel as if there is a distance between us as people outside of the politics. I am grateful that I can drop out of this group now and return to independent grrrl actvism which has been consistently more rewarding for me.
While writing an evaluative paper on this for a class, I realized we did a horrible job mobilizing on-campus awareness of our travel plans. Considering how widely this cause is supported at our school, we needed to be more visible instead of waiting until the last minute. I was also suprised we clung to an earlier organizing model that insisted women of color would not possibly understand about the feminist movement---again ironic considering we all had the same college curriculum and social expectations. Yes, we did attend the march, but community support was squandered for self-promotion.
I was subsequently happier with another student femist group (also from the women's studies program) based on the life/works of Gloria E. Anzaldua. Because one person has many different community memberships, they could not be expected to prioritize them into a neat package. I had a blast on our Austin trip. Even though I opted out of the election party (I was under a LOT of stress!) I had a blast with our water aerobics class.
View My Guestbook
