feminist » Danine N. Spencer

Giving Up Catholicism For Lent

Would Mary recognize today's Church? I doubt it.

Last week was the beginning of the Lenten season. Lent, which lasts about forty days, from Ash Wednesday until Easter Sunday, is the time when Christians remember the death of Jesus Christ. During this time, we are supposed to pray, reflect on the meaning of Jesus’ death, and, if we’re really good Christians, attempt a pathetic imitation of Jesus’ sacrifice by practicing self-denial.

Most people, especially women, “give up” chocolate or caffeine. (Note that you don’t usually hear about men practicing this rite of self-restricting. Dare I say the Catholic Church has an interest in maintaining the Beauty Myth? I spy another post for another day…)

Although I always feel guilty about it, I don’t usually give up anything. I just don’t see how giving up M&Ms or Starbucks even begins to approximate the sacrifice supposedly Jesus made for us. More importantly, how does self-restricting bring us closer to God?

This year is different. This year, I am giving up Catholicism for Lent. I just need a break from being Catholic. I hate writing those words. I really do. But the Catholic Church keeps breaking my heart. I am not sure I belong in the Church any more.

I am not sure I belong in a Catholic Church that doesn’t believe I have the right to control my own body, the right to contraception, or the right to an abortion. The Church values the lives of “unborn souls” over my life: the life that is already here, already fighting every day to survive.

I am not sure I belong in a Catholic Church that persecutes women every single day, from nuns who are too “independent” to the 98% of Catholic women who have used contraception to women (and men) who are in same-sex relationships.

I am not sure I belong in a Catholic Church that allows its priests to sexually abuse children or even rape nuns. The entire Church hierarchy, from the priests and bishops all the way to the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI need to acknowledge their roles in the rampant sex abuse throughout the Church. They need to repent and ask the victims’ forgiveness. They need to ask God’s forgiveness.

The Catholic Church has so many problems right now but the bishops and the Vatican simply refuse to admit anything is wrong. Instead, they are pretending the only evil in the world lies with people like me who can think for themselves, who know that ultimately, God is about love, not chocolate or contraception.

I am not sure where I belong spiritually or if I’ll remain Catholic but I need a break from the Church. I hope giving up Catholicism for Lent brings me spiritual renewal. I need it desperately. So does the Catholic Church.

Bye, bye, Bart Stupak!

So in case you haven’t heard, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is retiring from Congress when his term expires in January. When the news broke this morning, feminists rejoiced. (Republicans and Tea Party activists are ecstatic, too, but that’s another story, one that other people are much more qualified to talk about.)

Personally, I am thrilled Stupak is retiring, but unlike many feminists, I see this as more than a victory for women and reproductive rights. It is a victory for the people that Stupak was elected to represent: the residents of Michigan’s 1st Congressional District. (After this, I’ll refer to 1st Congressional District as CD1.) CD1 encompasses the entirety of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and several counties in the Lower Peninsula. (Apparently, the mitten part is called the Lower Peninsula. Who knew?) He was not elected to represent the residents of the C Street house, the religious organization known as The Family, the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops or the anti-choice movement.

Obviously, Stupak was and is free to vote according to his conscience and convictions. Since we live in a democracy, that is one of our founding principles. Another one of our founding principles is a representative government. When Stupak became the de facto leader of the anti-choicers in the House and nearly killed health care reform over the issue of abortion, he was no longer representing the CD1. Stupak put the needs if the “pro-life” movement ahead of his own constituents.

CD1 residents didn’t need an anti-abortion activist to advocate for them in the health care debate. They needed their member of Congress. The 118,000 seniors on Medicare who live in CD1 needed a representative working to close the so-called “donut hole” that can sometimes cost hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a month. 324,000 women needed him to make sure that maternal and preventative health care is covered. Since the district is extremely rural, with the largest town having a population of 20,916, residents across the CD1 needed him to work on improving Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates for rural doctors and providing other much needed assistance to rural medical providers.

In short, Bart Stupak failed residents of the 1st Congressional District. They deserve better. Whether his successor is a Democrat or Republican, I hope they get it.

National Women's (Disability) History Month: Alicia Alonso

Alicia Alonso is a Cuban prima ballerina and choreographer, best known for her portrayals of Gisele and Carmen. She was born in Havana, Cuba, in 1921 and began dancing at an early age, first in Havana at the Ballet School of the Pro-Art Musical Society in 1931. After marrying Fernando Alonso, they moved to New York City where Alicia studied with Anatole Vilzak and Ludmilla Shollar at the School of American Ballet. During this time, she also studied with Vera Volkova in London.

In 1938, Alonso made her Broadway debut in the musicals Great Lady in 1938 and Stars in Your Eyes in 1939. Early in her career, probably about the time, Alonso began experiencing problems with her vision and became partially blind. She continued to dance, by adapting to her impairment:

Her partners always had to be in the exact place she expected them to be, and she used lights in different parts of the stage to guide her. Her handicap was totally unnoticed by the audiences.

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, Alonso danced in New York, London, Paris, Havana, Russia and Monte Carlo. She is most famous for her iconic portrayal of Giselle in 1943.

Alonso founded the Alicia Alonso Ballet in 1948 in Havana which later became the Cuban National Ballet. After Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, Alonso returned to Cuba permanently and became director of the Cuban National Ballet, a position she holds to this day.

Watch Alicia Alonso performing Giselle with Vladimir Vasiliev and Ballet Nacional de Cuba (1981?)

Learn more about Alicia Alonso::

Photo credit: Library of Congress

SheWrites Day of Action

Today is the SheWrites Day of Action to protest the complete exclusion of women on Publishers Weekly’s Top Ten Best Books of 2009 list. One of the suggested ways to make the day is the create your own list of “Top Ten Best Books of 2009″.

I went through a long period of not reading for about a year and finally started reading again this summer so I don’t have a list of ten books actually published in 2009. (I have read more than ten books this year but they weren’t all published in 2009.) As a result, I only have seven books to recommend. However, I’m also going to recommend three books from 2009 that I still hope to read yet this year.

Without any further ado, here we go:

Commencement by J. Courtney Sullivan
A Short History of Women: A Novel by KateWalbert
The Help by Kathryn Stockett
The Curse of the Good Girl: Raising Authentic Girls with Courage and Confidence by Rachel Simmons
When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present by Gail Collins
Feminista by Erica Kennedy
Girldrive: Criss-Crossing America, Redefining Feminism by Emma Bee Bernstein and Nona Willis-Aronowitz

3 Books I Plan on Buying Soon

Notes from the Cracked Ceiling: Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and What It Will Take for a Woman to Win by Anne E. Kornblut
Read My Pins: Stories from a Diplomat’s Jewel Box by Madeleine Albright
Picking Bones from Ash: A Novel by Marie Mutsuki Mockett

All images courtesy of IndieBound.org except Notes from the Cracked Ceiling, which is from Powells.com

Veterans Day: No Longer Just A "Man's Holiday"

I’ve got a new post up at Women’s Rights | Change.org : Veterans Day: No Longer Just A “Man’s Holiday”. Here’s an excerpt:

Today is Veterans’ Day in the United States, a day when we pause to recognize those who have served in our nation’s armed services. Veterans’ Day is traditionally a man’s holiday, where we honor the men who have fought and died in our nation’s wars. However, the number of female veterans has doubled over the last twenty years, from 4% in 1988 to 8% this year. This number will only continue to grow as our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan continues.

It is important to pay tribute to all veterans, including female veterans. According to the IAVA, more than 212, 000 female service members have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, making up 11% of the force over there. More than 600 have been wounded in the combined wars and more than 120 women have died, including Staff Sgt. Amy C. Tirador of Albany, New York, who died November 4 in Kirkush, Iraq.

Keep reading at Womens Rights | Change.org

Photo credit: kevindooley on Flickr

Women on Medicaid Are Being Forgotten in Stupak Outrage

On Saturday night, my joy and relief at the health care reform bill being passed in the House of Representatives was quickly wiped out by the fury being expressed on Twitter and elsewhere by feminists and progressives over the Stupak amendment. According to the Feminist Majority Foundation, the amendment “bans abortion coverage even if women pay for it with their own money in the public option or private plans in the insurance exchange.”

This is obviously a big deal. In a press release, FMF’s president Ellie Smeal said:

“Millions of poor and middle class women will be denied abortion coverage. Millions more may lose abortion coverage because currently some 85% of private plans now have such coverage.”

I agree the Stupak amendment is terribly, terribly wrong. It is, as Ms. Smeal said, “an unacceptable, giant step backward for women.” Still, abortion cannot be allowed to derail health care reform. This is far too important to me and millions of other women – and men. Health care reform is about life and death. Out-of-control premiums and medical bills are forcing families to choose between buying groceries for their kids, paying the mortgage or obtaining life-saving medical treatment and prescription drugs.

Health care reform is not about abortion. Bart Stupak and the other “pro-life” members of Congress should be ashamed of themselves for hijacking what may be the most important piece of legislation of our time. This is truly a matter of life and death.

Abortion cannot be allowed to derail health care reform. Still, there is another issue that has been overlooked in the outrage over the Stupak amendment. According to the Kaiser Foundation, 9.5 million women are currently on Medicaid. The federal standard for Medicaid requires abortion coverage only in situations where the mother’s life is in danger or in the case of rape or incest. Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia only provide this level of coverage while seventeen states exceed federal requirements, funding “all or most medically necessary abortions”.

If abortion doesn’t derail the bill and we actually get health care reform passed, Medicaid’s ranks will expand to include 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, including millions more women.

What about poor women? Don’t we deserve abortion coverage as part of our reproductive rights? Where is the outrage for us? It seems like the feminist movement has simply forgotten about the poorest and sickest of women, those who are most likely to be in need of abortion services. Indeed, many women enroll in Medicaid because they are pregnant and uninsured. Our society has created a safety net for low-income women when they get pregnant but that safety net is full of knots and hard to break free of.

Medicaid’s income limits keep women mired in poverty. StateHealthFacts.org reports that 52.3% of non-elderly families receiving Medicaid have at least one full-time worker, which means that worker is working full-time but doesn’t have health insurance through their job. In order to keep their Medicaid, they cannot earn more than the FPL eligibility limits for their state. If they do earn more than the limits, they risk losing their health insurance.

Furthermore, 47.8% of the non-elderly on Medicaid work part-time or not at all. These people are not eligible for employer-sponsored plans and will probably be unable to afford any plans in the new insurance exchange. They will be stuck on Medicaid. Without abortion coverage.

It has been extremely frustrating and infuriating to watch the uproar over the Stupak amendment. It feels like the feminist movement has forgotten about the poor, sick and disabled women who are on Medicaid and only have access to abortion services under the Hyde Amendment.

Those of us on Medicaid deserve the same reproductive rights that everyone else is entitled to. We are not second-class citizens. We’re women.

New Office of Women's Health in House Health Care Bill

Note: This post is part of the National Women’s Day of Action for Health Care Reform. Learn more at A Woman Is Not A Pre-Existing Condition

Being a glutton for punishment, I decided to embrace my masochistic tendencies and try to tackle the (Democratic) House health care bill yesterday. I was searching for information on new regulations that will prohibit insurance companies from using gender ratings to discriminate against women when I came across Sec. 2588 on pg. 1609.

What is Sec. 2588? I’m so glad you asked. Sec. 2588 (under Division C – Public Health and Workforce Development > Title V – Other Provisions > Subtitle E – Miscellaneous) will establish an Office of Women’s Health (OWH) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Yes, you read that right. There will be an entire division of the federal government devoted to women’s health.

Among other things, OWH will establish short & long-term goals for HHS and other agencies for women’s health: disease prevention, health promotion, service delivery, research, and public and health care professional education. OWH will be headed up by a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, which is an appointed position. (Sec. 229, pg. 1609)

The Deputy Assistant Secretary, who I’ll just refer to as the Secretary to make my life a lot simpler, will establish and chair the HHS Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health. It will be composed of senior-level representatives from each of the federal agencies. Although the bill doesn’t explicitly lay out the functions of the Coordinating Committee, I assume it will be a lot like the White House on Women and Girls, only for health issues.

OWH will coordinate efforts to promote women’s health initiatives in private sector. Additionally, it will set up a National Women’s Health Information Center. This office will serve as a clearinghouse for women’s health information to the public and private sector.

There will also be an Office of Women’s Health established at the Center for Disease Control (CDC). This office will monitor will monitor women’s health initiatives within the CDC and establish short and long-term goals for the CDC relating to women’s health. In other words, this mini-OWH will be in charge of making sure the CDC is researching women’s health – what a concept! (Sec. 310A, pg. 1614)

There will also be an Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research within HHS. This office will keep tabs on the current status of research, identify areas of need for research on women’s health and make short and long term goals for research on women’s health.

There will be an Office of Women’s Health within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Again, what a concept. This office will monitor and report on women’s participation and outcomes in FDA clinical trials. It will establish short and long term goals for “adequate inclusion of women and analysis of data by sex in Administration protocols and policies”. In regular person talk, that means they’ll actually have to make sure to include women in their studies and reports. It will provide information to women and health care providers on differences between men and women in FDA studies and trials. Unfortunately, this mini-OWH at the FDA will not have any new regulatory authority. I’m not sure what the possible ramifications are but this seems bothersome. (Sec. 911)

All in all, I am extremely impressed with this new Office of Women’s Health. It appears that it will coordinate women’s health services across all the federal agencies and work to improve women’s health by conducting research, disseminating data to consumers and institutions, promoting prevention and wellness and more. Of course, this will be a brand-new bureaucracy so it will never work perfectly. Still, what excites me the most is the research OWH and its affiliates will conduct. For so long, medical research has been done on men and the results were assumed to be the same for women. This would be long overdue.

There is one very large BUT here. The provision to create an Office of Women’s Health is only in the Democratic House bill. It is not in the Senate bill or the Republican House bill. The House is tentatively set to vote on this bill as early as Saturday. I’m not sure if Sen. Reid is allowing amendments to the Senate bill anymore but if he is, we need to urge our senators to include a similar provision. That way, it will have a better chance of being in the conference bill.

Read the House bill here. The Office of Women’s Health provision starts on p. 1609, Sec. 2588. Make your life simple and use the search function to find it. Oh, and if you notice I read or summarized the bill incorrectly, please let me know: danine@danine.net. Thanks!

Book Review: The Curse of the Good Girl

I recently read Rachel Simmons’ The Curse of the Good Girl: Raising Authentic Girls with Courage and Confidence, which sheds a revealing light on girls’ emotional and social intelligence. Simmons posits that The Curse of the Good Girl is to be in eternal pursuit of a destructive yet highly desirable social norm that squelches girls’ individuality, self-esteem, ambition and interpersonal skills. I couldn’t agree more.

According to Simmons, Good Girls lack emotional intelligence. They aren’t aware of their feelings and don’t know how to express them appropriately. If they’re angry, sad or depressed, they deny it, even to themselves. They often believe they are not even entitled to their feelings.

Good Girls define themselves by their relationships, Simmons says. Their identity is intertwined in their relationships with their friends, parents, teachers, coaches, etc. When conflict arises in a Good Girl’s relationship, chaos ensues. Most girls simply haven’t learned the tools to handle conflict, including negative feedback, appropriately.

I was, and probably still am in some ways, the classic Good Girl. In seventh grade, my best friend since first grade grew apart from me. I thought she was mad at me and had no idea what I had done. Like many of the girls involved in misunderstandings that Simmons described, I never asked my friend what happened. We barely spoke a word to each other straight through to our high school graduation. I called her the “B” word and hated her, which was tough because we still shared the same circle of friends. It took me years to understand that she had simply grown away from me and our friendship, which was a natural part of adolescence. If we had been able to talk about it, perhaps we could have found some common ground on which to continue our friendship and not a war.

My lack of emotional intelligence carried over into other areas as well. Like many of the Good Girls that Simmons describes, I needed to be the straight-A student that always received glowing reviews from my teachers and other adults in my life. Receiving criticism implied I was a bad person, somehow. I’ll never forget the first time I got really reprimanded at my first job (I was a cashier at a supermarket). As soon as I was dismissed, I rushed to the break room in tears. I still have trouble taking criticism, but I’m getting better at it.

I felt like I was reading my own psychological profile as I read this book. I am amazed that so many other girls have had similar experiences. Simmons does a great job of explaining the problems girls face today and how to solve them.

Buy the book!

Photo Credit: Rachel Simmons. I was no compensated in any way for this review, okay, FTC?

Transcript and More Thoughts from Lummis Call

I posted a link to this transcript in my Saturday Link-Love but I wanted to post the actual text of my conversation with Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) from last Thursday. As you may recall, I was part of the BlogHer conference call on health care along with some other great bloggers. Reading the transcript back, I’m a little embarrassed at how incoherent I was. Okay, I’m more than a little embarrassed, but I was really emotional. Moreover, I was hesitant and nervous about challenging a Republican member of Congress, even over the telephone.

Here’s what I want to point out: I asked Rep. Lummis if there was any way she could support the current health care reform bill. She never answered that question and instead reverted to her Republican talking points. It seems to me that if Republicans really are in favor of health care reform like they profess to be and aren’t just playing politics, they would realize that health care reform is happening. They would be demanding a chair at the negotiation table and arguing for what was best for their constituents, not their campaign financiers.

The other notable point from the conversation is that after I talked about how Medicaid and disability are demonized, Rep. Lummis went on to tell me I shouldn’t be ashamed of being on the program. Rep. Lummis barely skipped a beat before going on to say that Medicare and Medicaid are going broke and she refuses to burden her daughter and grandchildren with these unsustainable government programs. I’m sure she didn’t realize she was doing it, but Rep. Lummis was doing the exact “demonizing” I was talking about: Making me feel like I am contributing to our national economic downfall by being a recipient of an “entitlement” program. She nearly brought me to tears.

Anyways, here’s my portion of the call:

Operator: Thank you. And the next question coming from the line of 455-L. Please proceed.

(Danine): My name is (Danine) and I am calling from (assumption). I have a complicated medical history and I currently on – I’m so sorry – on Medicaid and I want to get off of those programs, be kind of quite frankly, Medicaid and disability are demonized and treated, you know, every time you talk about an entitlement program, you know, well, they’re demonized.

But I absolutely have to have health insurance. I have a condition called (hydrocephalus) and I have a shunt in my head that relieves the pressure from my brain and every single day of my life, I have to be able to afford health insurance and healthcare.

And I – in order to get off of SSI and Medicaid, I need to be able to – I’m working towards self-employment – and I need to be able to afford health insurance.

And with all due respect and I mean this incredibly, the reality is is that our greatest chance for – I don’t – I can’t – the reality is is that I probably won’t be able to afford private insurance in the current environment and my best option is probably – I’m sorry – but it’s probably in with this healthcare reform as the Democrats are proposing it.

Is there any possible way that you can support their policies or get on-board with healthcare reform in 2009? I need healthcare reform. I need something because the day that I don’t have health insurance, that could be the day that my shunt breaks and I need emergency brain

It’s a life – I think it was literally started – no, I’m sorry. I don’t remember which person said it. That’s the day that I could – that’s the day that – it’s a life and death thing and I’m sorry, but it’s very, very personal for me.

And I need my legislative Congress people to help. I’m not trying to put you on the spot, but…

Cynthia Lummis: No, you’re not putting me on the spot and I appreciate your dilemma. I want you to know how proud I am of America that Medicaid is there for you and you should not feel the least bit apologetic about the fact that Medicaid is serving you to help you with a condition that is highly debilitating and that really affects your quality of life.

That’s why it’s there so please take advantage of it. You are exactly the person that it was meant for. In the case that your condition were to improve to the extent that you could leave the availability of Medicaid, there would be tax credits in Republican plans for low-income people.

Of course the high-risk pools if you still can’t get coverage would be available to you. There is in Republican bills the opportunity for insurance to be purchased across state lines so in states like my state of Wyoming which has a very small population and health insurance cannot be pooled across state lines, bills would allow for Wyoming to participate in much bigger pools.

And the people of Wyoming could band together either through their church or their trade associations or states themselves to provide larger pools of people who can share the burden and lower the cost of health insurance, especially for those of us as I said that are in areas of very small populations.

So by all means, keep your Medicaid, keep healthy to the extent that those medications are helping you have a higher quality of life and don’t be the least apologetic about participating in Medicaid. That’ what it’s there for.

Now the problem I have with the bill that the Speaker rolled-out today is that it forces on states unfunded mandates to expand Medicaid. Where are the states going to get the money to do that?

In California, there would estimates that it could cost California $8 billion a year to expand Medicaid according to the Speaker’s bill. California is already awash in debt. They can’t add $8 billion to the state’s debts in order to cover programs that Congress mandates on them that they can’t afford to pay for.

So the problem I have with the Speaker’s bill and with these government-run programs that Democrats are advocating is that they are not paid for so it will just create a situation just like we’re going to face with Medicare down the road and that is that Medicare will eventually go broke because it is going to be paying out more in benefits than people are paying in.

And with those kinds of unsustainable government programs that promise a lot but are unpaid for, we are burdening our children and grandchildren with paying for us and for our needs without regard to what our children and grandchildren will face in the future.

And I’m opposed to saddling my child and her children with debts that I incur. I need to make sure that while I’m here in Congress, I am being responsible to the next generation and doing the best job I can for us in this generation.

That’s why I encourage you to stay on Medicaid to the extent that you are able to and when your situation improves to the extent that you are able to afford insurance, take advantage of the tax credits. Take advantage of state high-risk pools and thank you and, you know, I hope your condition improves and thank you for your question.

(Danine): I have one quick question. How is Medicare and Medicaid more – how is Medicaid more financially solvent and this is – I’m not being just (cold), I actually want to know?

Cynthia Lummis: What was your question again?

(Danine): Is Medicaid more financially solvent than Medicare?

Cynthia Lummis: Well, Medicaid is – they’re both in trouble. They’re both in trouble in the long run because they’re paying out more in benefits than they take in and every year more of the federal budget is going to pay for entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the states are responsible for of course picking-up a share of Medicaid so it’s also having a big impact on state budgets.

(Danine ): Okay. Thank you.

Read the rest of the transcript here

Saturday Link-Love

Happy Halloween! Hope your Saturday is treating you well. Here are a few of the week’s best links:

First, a little horn-tootin’. I am humbled and honored to be included on this list of 50 Eye-Opening Women’s Studies Blogs, along with some of the great feminist blogs on this list. Check it out!

Ashley at the Small Strokes blog has a new project: This is What a Beautiful Bride Looks Like, which features pictures of real brides. Here’s a description of the site, in Ashley’s own words:

As an engaged woman who loves her body, I am sick and tired of seeing ads for “Wedding Weightloss” routines and images of 100% “perfect,” unattainable brides! Here, I hope to collect some pictures of brides with REAL beauty! To submit a photo, e-mail samsanator(at)gmail(dot)com

On Thursday, I participated in a Conference Call with Rep. Cynthis Lummis (R-WY). BlogHer has now posted the full transcript of the event, including my Q&A with the congresswoman.

Finally, here’s a little Halloween fun for ya. The fab team at Bitch Media has put together an awesome list of Feminist Halloween Costumes. I love the idea of going as one of Jem and the Holograms.