Following their extremely informative column (anybody who hasn’t read it yet should go back and read!) from last week on how McCain and Obama rank on the international women’s issues scale, here’s a follow-up from Tonni and Gwen just a day before the election. Hoping for a fantastic tomorrow. –Kristen

Hi folks. Tonni & I wanted to share a quote from you as a follow-up to our Global Exchange: Election Special.

The amazing Debra Schultz, Acting Director of the Gender Program at the International Center for Transitional Justice (and proud NCRW alumna), shared her insights on the coming election with us:

“McCain and Palin are likely to continue U.S. unilateralism in foreign policy, which can only impact women negatively. Why? Prolonged US involvement in Iraq, possible confrontation with Iran and instability in Pakistan (how easily the assassination of Benazir Bhutto seems forgotten), will disproportionately affect women and children. In an economic downturn, bloated military budgets will siphon funds needed to provide for social welfare priorities at home, such as healthcare reform and education reform.

A US multilateralist approach under Obama would likely benefit gender justice worldwide.

If the US ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the international community could hold states and non-state actors accountable for war rape including the massive epidemic of sexual violence in the eastern Congo.”

Thank you, Debra, and Happy Election Eve to all!

–Gwen and Tonni

In the past few weeks, a number of conservatives, most prominently Colin Powell, have endorsed Obama’s candidacy for president (talk about reaching across the aisle). Most recently came an endorsement from Jeffrey Hart, who was a Nixon and Regan speechwriter and who worked at the National Review for four decades.

The endorsement seemed unique and particularly significant for offering a strong defense of Roe v. Wade and embryonic stem cell research. Hart’s conservatism is of the Burkean kind, rooted in realistic assessment of social conditions and changes. He inextricably ties woman’s right to choice to the advancement of women’s equality. It makes one realize exactly how much the Republican party has morphed itself under Bush. I think Hart’s rationale deserves repeating in full:

Ever since Roe vs. Wade, abortion has been a salient controversy in our politics. But the availability of abortion is linked to the long advancement of women’s equality. Again, we are dealing with social change, and this requires understanding social change, a Burkean imperative that Obama understands.

On my Dartmouth campus, half the undergraduates are women. They do not want to have their plans derailed by an unwanted pregnancy. In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the Court ruled that the availability of abortion “enables women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the country.”

Though there is a tragic aspect to abortion, as Obama recognizes, women’s equality means that women have control of their reproductive capability. Men don’t worry about that. The fact is that 83 percent of elective abortions occur during the first trimester, and decline rapidly after that.

Both Obama and McCain support federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, Obama more urgently. The conservative movement publications, following Bush, have been fiercely opposed. Such opposition required a belief that a cluster of cells (the embryo) the size of the period at the end of this sentence is as important (more important?) than a seriously ill human being.

I myself cannot fathom such a mentality.

In fact, embryonic stem cell research is being energetically pursued in the following nations: Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, China cooperating with the EU. Privately funded and state funded laboratories are moving ahead vigorously.

Recently, Harvard announced a program that will be part of a multi-billion dollar science center to be established south of the Charles River, and will be able to supply sem cells to other laboratories. I call that Pro-Life.

Robin Morgan wrote recently about “faux feminists,” namely in the context of those who support Sarah Palin’s candidacy for vice president. While, as I have pointed out, I think a Palin vice presidency would prove detrimental for women’s status in America, particularly because of her fiercely narrow anti-choice position, to bisect women into “true” vs. “fake” feminists (sound familiar?) without any room for contingency is unworkable in a society where women are represented by a variety of identities. In this case, I think Morgan needed to make a distinction between political feminism and personal feminism.

Political feminism needs to promote policies which, at the fount, support the advancement of women from a variety of disparate backgrounds, including different ethnicities, economic situations, regional and religious experiences. It needs to fight for women in those areas of society where they experience distinct disadvantages and discrimination. But it especially needs to support female Choice, particularly in sexuality and reproduction, above and beyond all else: the Choice to marry whomever she wants and the Choice to have or not have a child contingent on her personal circumstances.

A politician who supports women’s economic and political advancement, but not their bodily sovereignty, is incapable of representing feminism on an American political stage. Palin refuses to look beyond a personal, religiously-motivated decision on her part to understand why an urban teenager with a bright college future ahead of her, or a college junior, or a woman with little economic support, or a mid-career woman for whom it’s just not the right time, or a rape victim, must have the Choice to end an unwanted pregnancy. The difference between a personal and political feminism hinges on the question of whom it affects–and while Palin’s views on abortion may be right for her, they are not right for the majority of women in this country. The personal may always be political, but the political should not always be personal.

On the other hand, despite what I would describe as a viscerally negative reaction to Palin’s candidacy, I don’t think we should delineate stringent standards for who is a “feminist.” “I am a feminist.” It’s an expression we don’t hear enough. Based on pure numbers, we should be encouraging as many women as possible to express this sentiment: “I am a feminist.” At base, it means that you are actively working for women’s advancement, independence, and equality, either in your own life or at large. Given how diverse our society is, that can take on any number of meanings.

My grandmother is a devout Catholic, anti-choice, and very pro-Palin (we’ve been studiously avoiding the topic for the past few months). At the same time, she pulled herself out of 1950s housewife-dom to go back to college at age 36 with two kids at home, became a first-time teacher at age 40, and through various family crises has shown herself to be a fiercely independent and modern woman who refused to cede ground to males in the family. Would I want her deciding American policy on women’s issues for the next four years? No way. Would I love it if she called herself a feminist and would I think it true? Absolutely. In fact, sometimes I call her a feminist and while she’ll sigh “Nooo,” you can hear pride in her voice. “Feminist” can be a very empowering term.

“Feminist” also demands context. The first-wave feminists were hardly pro-choicers, but they were extremely effective politically for their time. Radical and middle-class feminists in the second wave had radically different ideas on tactics and outcomes, but both groups were feminists in their own way. Which feminism was more effective for American women at the time is a different conversation. If we stick to a too-narrow version of “feminist” then we leave out a significant number of women who are trying to carve out how to be feminists on their own terms, in their own societies, in their own religious contexts even.

There are Jewish Orthodox feminists, who have made great strides in female education, grassroots religious practices, and tefillah (prayer) groups [You can read about it in: “Women in Orthodoxy: Conventional and Contentions” by Norma Baumel Joseph in Women Remaking American Judaism, ed. Riv-Ellen Prell, 2007: Wayne State University Press). While the headway may seem small to those who don’t adhere to Orthodox beliefs, why would we deny women who have sought to effect changes within the contexts of their religion the right to call themselves Feminist?

It’s a matter of semantics, but to prevent us from wasting time over accusatory, and sometimes riskily exclusive arguments of “Who’s a feminist? Are you a feminist? Am I a feminist? Is she? Is he?” We should take “Feminist” off the grand, binary scale and ask instead about American political feminism. Sarah Palin, through a mixture of savvy and chutzpah, has become a politically powerful woman and within her context, I can understand why she considers herself a feminist. But does she represent feminism in the same way Hillary does? Will she work effectively in political office for the betterment of the diverse body of American women? In short: hell no.

–Kristen Loveland

The other day I wrote a post saying that Sarah Palin could call herself a feminist if she wanted to (more on that next week), but that she did not practice a viable feminism. I’ve previously written about how Palin’s policies are distinctly anti-women.

Women have the right to sexual freedom and privacy as well as the right to economic and social independence and advancement; a lack of reproductive rights represents a disconnect preventing women from fully taking advantage of either. A woman cannot be both sexually active and fulfill her economic/social plans without the assurance of birth control and the choice to abort if needed. In Slate, Linda Hirshman cited statistics on female teenagers’ economic prospects if they give birth at an early age:

The fact sheets from the well-respected National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy describe a bleak prospect: Even controlling for social and economic backgrounds, only 40 percent of teenage girls who bear children before age 18 go on to graduate from high school, compared with the 75 percent of teens who do not give birth until ages 20 or 21. Less than 2 percent of mothers who have children before age 18 will earn a college degree by age 30, compared with 9 percent of young women who wait until age 20 or 21 to have children.

But wait, there’s more: “Overall, teenage mothers—and their children—are also far more likely to live in poverty than females who don’t give birth until after age 20.”

I think it’s obvious that women must have access to reproductive choice. And because lack of information can have such an egregious and detrimental impact on a young woman’s future social standing, we must be prepared to speak openly and honestly about sexuality and the effect of unexpected or too-early pregnancy on women’s economic future in our society.

Yet, when it comes down to reproductive justice, the McCain camp is unwilling to address the reality of women’s multiple circumstances in today’s America. Palin doesn’t believe in abortion unless a woman’s life is at risk. McCain has created some fantasy world where thousands of women making up “illnesses” and “health risks” to fetch themselves abortions, using “air quotes” to describe women’s “health” concerns. Though Palin and McCain may claim that they are concerned about women’s issues, they have no idea about the needs of the majority women in America. It’s a dark realization, an especially dark one with November 4th looming.

But to add some levity, take a look at the ever-awesome Samanta Bee’s take on John McCain on women’s “health”:

(Wait for it, wait for it… It’s in there)

It’s hard to believe that election day is now less than a week away. The Economists’ Policy for Women’s Issues has graded the candidates nationally, but here with a special (and first!) edition of Global Exchange, Gwen and Tonni will be grading each candidate on their work in international issues that affect women. We are absolutely thrilled to have them address a topic that has been egregiously overlooked in this election. –Kristen

In just a few days the citizens of the United States of America will cast their ballots and determine their President, the future leader of the Free World (and really anything he so chooses). Today we consider what both candidates’ positions on reproductive health, international trade, the conflict in Darfur, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean for women internationally.

Toni Ann Brodber: Not too long ago I found myself explaining to a newly baptized American friend of mine why we foreigners watch every 4 years with bated breath as the American public decides our collective fate. Your policy often becomes our policy whether we like it or not. Some of us know this first hand. Frankly many of us faced near asphyxiation as a result of recent US policy decisions. Now, by the time we’ve learned how to breathe with barely any air there’s hope…and the cycle begins again.

Gwendolyn Beetham: I don’t know how many of my friends (including, you, Tonni!) from around the world have told me that they wish they could vote in this year’s election, not least because White House policies very much affect women around the world.

TB: No pressure.

With the current economic crisis, what the next president’s foreign policies will mean for women isn’t grabbing any headlines. There has been some coverage of how the candidate’s different policies will affect US women, but, like our friends at the Center for New Words, we’re of the opinion that there just hasn’t been enough. So, we’ve done the research for you. We’ve looked at how the candidates’ foreign policy positions will affect women globally, and have taken it one step further by grading the campaigns. Our findings may (or may not)surprise you.

Reproductive Health
The Global Gag Rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was a Reagan-era policy that made it possible to deny U.S. funding to organizations that that “provide abortion services or counsel, refer, or lobby on abortion”. One of George W. Bush’s first official acts in office was to reinstate this policy, which had been repealed during the Clinton Administration. This rule led to the scaling back of reproductive health programs in approximately 56 countries around the world, which, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, “imperils women’s health and lives both in countries where abortion is legal, as well as where it is illegal.” Reports on the impact of the Gag Rule on women’s lives point to a shortage of contraceptives, clinic closings, loss of funds for HIV/AIDS education, and a rise in unsafe abortions in countries where the rule has been implemented.

According to a survey conducted by RH Reality Check in December 2007, Obama plans to overturn the Global Gag Rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA. McCain supports the Global Gag Rule and voted against repealing it in 2005. He has not addressed UNFPA directly, but, when asked in a town hall in Iowa whether he believed that contraceptives stopped the spread of HIV, McCain responded, “You’ve stumped me.”

Grade:
Obama/Biden: A
McCain/Palin: D-

Comments:
For the past seven years, the Bush Administration has also stopped funding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), claiming that it “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.” UNFPA’s office in China as an example of such support, despite the fact that a U.S. fact-finding mission to China found “no evidence that UNFPA has supported or participated in the management of a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization”. More recently, USAID discontinued funding to Marie Stopes International (MSI) in several African countries due to the organization’s ties to UNFPA in China. (Curiously, such moral objections don’t seem to stop the government from letting China buy up much of the U.S.’s debt.) According to UNFPA, the $34 million in funding that the U.S. would give annual could prevent:

2 million unwanted pregnancies;
nearly 800,000 induced abortions;
4,700 maternal deaths;
nearly 60,000 cases of serious maternal illness;
over 77,000 infant and child deaths.

For more policies and grades, click to go past the jump!

International Trade
Free Trade Agreements. Turns out sometimes these are as good for a Detroit auto-worker as it is for a central American woman (i.e. they pretty much suck). US-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) might be beneficial for those at the extreme upper echelons of the business world in Central America, but it is absolutely detrimental to women’s economic growth. CAFTA does not protect women workers from workplace discrimination. The labor laws included in the pact exclude workplace discrimination, so good luck to those Dominican women working in the country’s export processing sector who took issue with being fired for being pregnant. (Women who would also benefit from those programs cut because of the Global Gag Rule.) An Obama/Biden presidency would withdraw from CAFTA, a McCain/Palin would continue to support it.

Grade:
Obama/Biden: A-
McCain/Palin: D-

Comments:
Senator Obama has opposed CAFTA from its very beginnings.

Darfur
It is no surprise that women and children are particularly affected by the genocide in Darfur. More than 2.5 million people have been displaced in Darfur (with up to 300,000 dead); tens of thousands of them are women and children. The Obama/Biden claims that they will put an end to the genocide in Darfur and pressure the government to stop killing its own citizens. They are one step behind the International Criminal Court, whose judges are considering whether to issue an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Beshir on 10 counts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. The McCain/Palin campaign doesn’t address Darfur directly; however, Governor Palin claimed that she was at the forefront of the movement in Alaska to sell stocks of companies that did business with Sudan. The facts show that she may not have been at the forefront but at least she joined the bandwagon.

Grade:
Obama/Biden: B
McCain/Palin: B-

Comments:
It’s all fine and dandy to get out but what next? Will the US President support initiatives such as those in Rwanda to ensure that women are included in government? Support for women goes beyond ending the war, but it is a good place to begin.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
The positions of each candidate on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are widely published, but rarely do these conversations consider the effects on women civilians in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither campaign website addresses this issue, nor do they address what withdrawal (of any type) will mean for women there.

Grade:
Obama/Biden: C
McCain/Palin: D-

Comments:
Even with an exit plan, there needs to be provisions to ensure that the transition is favorable for women and children.

Interestingly, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan reconstruction forces have taken full advantage of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which addresses women’s roles in peacekeeping and in reconstruction. In Iraq, the failure to include women in reconstruction resulted in a “big disappointment” for women’s rights under the new constitution. In Afghanistan, a report in 2007 found that “pervasive insecurity in contemporary Afghanistan has not been conducive to the actualization of the commitments set out in 1325…” and that “the recent negotiations between the Taliban and NATO/ISAF in the South – raises many concerns”. In neither case – despite widespread abuses – were leaders of previous regimes brought to court on charges of gender-based human rights crimes (such as was the case in Rwanda).

Notable mentions from the Obama/Biden team:

Violence Against Women:
As Chairman of the Foreign Relations committee, Senator Joe Biden has taken many steps to support international women’s rights, including, in 2007, the introduction of the International Violence Against Women Act. Biden was also one of the original sponsors of the domestic , or VAWA, first passed in 1994. Senator McCain has voted against VAWA twice.

AIDS:
Senator Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act (2007), which (if passed) will make microbicides a higher priority on the U.S. Federal AIDS research agenda. What are microbicides? They are totally amazing women-controlled methods of protection against sexually transmitted infection and unwanted pregnancy. Microbicides come in many forms – gels, creams, films – but they are unique in that they are relatively undetectable, which makes them key in the fight against HIV/AIDS by empowering women to protect themselves without the knowledge of their partners.

Vets:
Senator Obama has introduced various pieces of legislation specifically addressing the needs of women vets, including efforts to provide funding for additional caseworkers and mental health counselors for returning soldiers, with a special women’s mental health treatment program.

Notable mentions from McCain/Palin:

Vets:
Senator McCain has stated publicly that the “special needs” of women veterans should be responded to. (There is no information on his website on whether he has supported this statement legislatively.)

For further information:

For a comprehensive list of gender -specific veterans’ needs, see the 2008 biannual report from the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Facts on Darfur

Obama/Biden Foreign Policy

Obama/Biden Women’s Issues

McCain/Palin National Security

McCain/Palin Values

This is what women want campaign

—Gwen and Tonni

Today is Write to Marry Day, where bloggers around the world are blogging to in support of marriage equality and to say NO to Proposition 8 in California, which will be voted on this election day, and which would overturn one of the most momentous victories for equal rights in recent memory.

Jacqueline will have a post up later today, but I just wanted to share an ad that they’ve had out recently. They’ve been getting savvy and I like this Mac vs. PC setup:

Elaine Lafferty, former editor of Ms. magazine and a Democrat, has been on Palin’s plane (EDIT: as a paid consultant) since soon after she was nominated and has offered a defense of the intelligence, feminism, and confidence of Palin in a piece at The Daily Beast titled “Sarah Palin’s a Brainiac.”

Of course this has created some furor in the feminist world, so here are my two cents. While Palin seems to have hit more of a stride now, all of her early exhibitions of intellectual work and curiosity showed someone unprepared for the job of VP, someone who had never thought about issues beyond the Alaskan borders, and someone who showed a lack of intellectual curiosity. Elaine may see someone different on the plane, but the public decides based on what they’re given access to, and their access to Palin has been minimal and, in the beginning, unsettling.

The other issue here is “What Is Feminism.” I believe that Palin thinks she is working for women–and to a certain extent her candidacy is good for feminism, forcing conservatives to support a powerful female candidate. Of course, we’ll see what the narrative on her “ability” and “intelligence” turns out to be after the election, when, if McCain loses, his camp may turn on her. Clearly in her own personal life, she has shown moxie and a great deal of confidence (over-confidence in taking on a job she wasn’t really ready for yet?).

Personally, I would call a woman who designates herself a feminist and who currently supports women’s progress in many areas of social/economic/political life, but not a woman’s right to choose, a feminist. I’m not sure who has the right to give or take that designator away, and I don’t think there’s a real point in fighting over the moniker itself. However, I do think we need to determine what is a viable feminism .

In our era, a woman, like any man, will have to work hard to achieve her desired social and economic standing. At the same time she has the right to a private sexuality. As a result, she may choose to prevent pregnancy or abort if pregnancy occurs at an undesired time, a time which will prevent her from achieving the social/economic independence and power that Palin claims women have a right to go after. Reproductive choice is today inherently tied into women’s status, and thus Palin’s feminism, a feminism that does not give a woman that right to choose, is not a viable feminism for our age.

Image Credit

This here’s an open call for reviews of the following, to be published here on GWP:

Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage by Jenny Block

My Little Red Book, edited by Rachel Kauder Nalebuff (Feb 2009) – an anthology about first periods! Read more on the author’s website, www.mylittleredbook.net

Interested? See our “Submit Your Ink” page for more.

Image cred

Amnesty International has reported that an American-Iranian student (she holds both American and Iranian nationality) has been arrested in Iran while doing work on the Iranian women’s movement for her Master’s thesis. Amnesty reports

Esha Momeni, a student and women’s rights defender, was arrested by Iranian security officials on 15 October. She is being held in Section 209 of Evin Prison in Tehran, which is run by the Ministry of Intelligence. She has not been charged with any offense, and is at risk of torture or other ill-treatment.

Esha Momeni is a graduate student at California State University, Northridge, in the USA. She is also a member of a branch of the Campaign for Equality in California. She had been in Iran for two months to visit her family and to conduct research for her Master’s degree thesis on the Iranian women’s movement, for which she had conducted video interviews with members of the Campaign for Equality in Tehran.

More information on Esha Momeni as well as addresses to write letters to protesting her detainment can be found here and in an article at the Chronicle.

Other ways to help (thanks to Sharon Collingwood for sending these out to the Women’s Studies List):

There is an online petition here.

The American Islamic Congress also has a petition.

The World Organization Website has more on the story.

This activist site has a video that could be useful in the classroom (1:46 in length).

There is a student group on Facebook.

CSUN’s statement.

Wow — some very cool authors speaking on the radio together tonight. Tune in to City Visions Radio, 91.7 FM, KALW or online at www.cityvisionsradio.com at 10pm ET to hear Mama, PhD: Women Write About Motherhood and Academic Life coeditor Caroline Grant in conversation with Mary Ann Mason, author of Mothers on the Fast Track: How a New Generation Can Balance Family and Careers, and Joan Williams, author of Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It.

You can participate too.  During the show, call in with your questions and comments to 415.841.4134 or email feedback@cityvisionsradio.com