WAM! session thoughts...

Ahhh. I'm back in lovely, windy, cold, wet Michigan.

I'm feeling a little more rested and recovered, and still extremely excited and invigorated by my experiences at WAM!. I just wanted to share a few of my favorite sessions and moments at the conference. It all seems like such a blur in a way. I might be experiencing an information overload, in fact. There was so much energy packed into three short days- between attending sessions and meeting all of these amazing feminists and listening to the killer key notes... it was a lot to take in.

Let me start off by reiterating just how completely awesome "Breaking the Frame" was. I get a little giddy just thinking about it. Emily Douglas was the session moderator, and introduced the other three members of the session. I knew that I was in for a treat when Aimee Thorne-Thomsen, of the Pro-Choice Public Education Project started talking. I wish I could have recorded the session, because her words were like lightning- sharp and hot. She pointed out how far we, in the pro-choice movement, miss the mark when we focus almost exclusively on reproductive justice as abortion rights. The maintstream media has us convinced that The most important issue in reproductive rights and justice is the right to have an abortion. But, for many, many women that's just not the case. Current campaigns use the language of rights to talk about ending pregnancy, but those campaigns often fail to connect with the minds and realities of many young women and/or women of color.

And that's due, in part, to the framing we've allowed to happen. We've let the right convince us that the most important discussion is whether a woman has a right to end her pregnancy, but for a lot of women, the real questions are about having the ability to make all kinds of choices. Thorne-Thomsen talked about the concept of justice for women as being the economic, social, and political power to make healthy choices for themselves and their communities.

In other words, it's not just about having the choice to get an abortion should you desire one. It's about having access to preventative measures. It's about having access to sex-education and contraception. It's about having access to healthy food and medical care should you want to have a baby. It's about reproductive rights of all kinds and about the socio-economic and political barriers to making informed and healthy choices for yourselves.

The discussion about justice as intersectional versus rights as more individualistic was important as well. In the interest of actual justice, one has to dedicate time and energy towards the people who are most impacted by the issues. We have to work on engaging with and working with the women from all backgrounds to find out what kinds of issues they're actually dealing with, and to find out how their lives can be improved by working together on the issues that are most impacting their lives.

Cristina Page, the author of How the Pro-choice Movement Saved America, was a great compliment to Thorne-Thomsen. Where Thorne-Thomsen was focused a lot on how we, as feminists, need to work on embracing the diversity of experiences and concerns within women of color communities and younger women, Page discussed the anti-choice movement and some of the ways that we've let them control the discussion. One of her major focuses was debunking the myth about the concern for reducing abortion rates. The anti-choice movement's most vocal and political supporters often talk about there being a right to life, and being a movement concerned with reducing the number of abortions and wanting to protect the sanctity of life, but, as Page points out, they've consistantly taken steps that actually contribute to abortion rates.

It's no coincidence, she says, that abortion rates are lowest in places with strong pro-choice movements, but high in places with strong pro-life/anti-choice movements. The reality is that many of the most vocal supporters of the movement aren't pro-life, they're anti-women. This is one of the major reasons, Page claims, that so many politicians who claim to be "pro-life" do things like oppose comprehensive sex education, oppose funding to programs designed to provide support to children and working mothers, attempt to redefine contraception as abortion, etc. Anti-choice politicians routinely strip out the very tools that would otherwise contribute to women's abilities to raise children, making it harder to have and raise them.

The connection, of course, is that often times pro-choice advocates don't do enough to retarget the debate onto those issues. Often times, we're so focused on Roe v. Wade that we lose sight of the fact that, for example, a woman getting an abortion because she can't afford to raise a child isn't actually making a free choice- she's essentially being coerced. It's only when we've created an environment where women are truly able to make the choice to abort or carry the fetus without fear of social damnation or economic ruin that the choice is really free. If the choice is between aborting or losing your home, it's not much of a choice.

I thought a particularly awesome moment in the session came when it was pointed out that the so-called "pro-life" movement, which typically bills itself as the part of family values, is, in point of fact, opposed to traditional family values. The opposition to contraception, to enjoying sex, to abortion, to providing support for children... all of those things seem to run against many of our lived experiences... and yet, few of us call them out on this.

Amanda Marcotte, of Pandagon, was the final speaker, and her focus was on the strategy aspects of discussing reproductive justice. Her advice was not to be afraid of engaging critics- challanging the misinformation and lies that they spread are an important part of our work. It's important to be able to call bullshit when you see it. She also advocated moving away from overly academic language and discussions of reproductive justice in the abstract, and forcing anti-choicers to take the discussion to a real level. That is, to start talking about the women who are really effected by these issues and to talk to people in the ways that people really do communicate.

When the mainstream media ignores discussions about reproductive justice and the very real women who have experienced abortions in favor of the six second soundbite and the political message, it hurts the movement. It erases the lived experiences of women in favor of political talking heads- typically male.

The Q&A part of the session was equally mind blowing. There were so many great questions and comments made from women all around the room. I wish I had the names of the people asking, but, alas, I wasn't able to get them in time. There was a point made about how one of the ways that more academic feminists miss the boat in the discussion is by conflating anti-choice with religious. The commenter pointed out that there are strong women of color communities for whom faith is an important part of their pro-choice work and their identities as women of color and feminists, but, when we talk about the anti-choice right, we end up treating faith as something to be mocked or something that only our enemies have, and we end up silencing our allies because of this.

I'm still thinking about all of the great things that came out of the session. It really was a profoundly moving and inspiring session. It also set the bar really high for the rest of the conference. The speakers were so powerful and packed so much into such a short time, that, I have to admit, I couldn't help but be nervous about my own session. I don't know if I was lucky or not- Naomi and I presented our session in the final slot of the conference. We were the last presentation slot on the last day. Which, of course, meant that everyone who came had already attended, potentially, four other really amazing sessions.

No pressure.

Really, though, the session was amazing. I have to give serious thanks to Naomi- she put together a spectacular PowerPoint presentation for our session. I also want to give a huge shout-out to Latoya Peterson, who can be found over at Racialicious (and as their new editor! Huzzah!), too. She was practically a third presenter once the Q&A started. She had a lot of really great information to share, and, I'm not gonna lie, it made me go "Squee!" inside when she told everyone who she was.

Like I was saying, the session itself went really well, I think. I was originally worried that we wouldn't have enough to present or that we wouldn't have much of an audience, but both fears turned out to be completely unfounded. There were people from all kinds of gaming backgrounds- from a board gaming enthusiasts (Hello Anna! Again, very excited to have a contact for gaming!) to people who infrequently game, to a half dozen or so people who actively describe themselves as gamers. Naomi and I launched into our session, and it quickly became apparent that we weren't going to get through all of the information we had prepared, which was both sad and exciting. Sad, because a lot of work went into preparing the information and a lot of it was really good, but exciting because it just further illustrates how important the conversation is, and how much people are interested. In the end, we did almost an hour of Q&A, and only stopped because we'd run a half hour over our allotted time, and the conference was, you know... over!

We mentioned some sites in the presentation, and I just wanted to make sure to put up some of the links we talked about- for people who are interested, there are some really great feminist communities forming around gaming. One of my favorites and pretty much a daily read for me is Mighty Ponygirl's site, Feminist Gamers. There's also Andrea Rubenstein's blog Official Shrub.com, the online gaming magazine Cerise (which covers a variety of gaming types, from tabletop to video), and, of course, The Iris Network, which is an amazing project. There are tons of great links at all of those sites, too, and the community of feminist gamers is growing all the time. And, of course, please share any links in the comments section, too.

I'll have one more post on my experience at WAM! later, because not only were the sessions really great, but I had an opportunity to meet some really terrific and inspiring people, too.

Oh, right... I actually attended three other sessions, too- they were great, and I may still talk about them later, but I attended a session on Strategies for Making Change which focused on some of the ways that progressives can work with independent media and DIY culture as well as leverage more mainstream outlets to help get the message out and improve the lives of women and make sure that women's voices are silenced in the media. I attended a session called "Stereotypes and Typecasting in Reality Television", too. That one was a great look at the ways that pop culture influences and impacts our perceptions of women in society, and how the narratives that are being created on shows like The Swan or Beauty and the Geek play into and reinforce harmful stereotypes about women. Also a great session. I can talk about them more later, if people are interested, but, for now, it's back to work with me.

Can We Talk About Cronyism?

This story on feministing caught my eye. I wish I could say that it surprised me that Bush would would appoint someone to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who, in his last job, "undermined the unit's mission of securing the employment rights of women and minorities in the public sector, while defending employers' rights to discriminate based on religion." Because, you know, nothing screams equal opportunity like institutional discrimination. Er. Right?

Sadly, this administration has a bit of a history with making bullshit inappropriate nominations and picking the worst possible appointees. It's so fucking ridiculous when you start to think about it. Has Bush made a single good nomination? Did someone accidently misexplain the situation to him? Is he under the impression that you're supposed to appoint people with blatant conflicts of interest to positions? Does he think that the point of the EEOC is to violate equal employment opportunities?

But, like I say, it shouldn't be a surprise. Bush has repeatedly made awful nominations, and has a habit of using... *ahem*... underhanded appointment methods. When he doesn't put people into positions that they're woefully unqualified for, he sticks morally bankrupt criminals into positions of power.

Which is odd... because Bush seems to understand the point of political appointments. The White House homepage claims that "One of President Bush's top priorities is to select men and women of the greatest ability and highest ethical and professional integrity to serve in policymaking and key administrative positions in his administration." Bush himself says of political appointments:

The success of the Bush-Cheney administration will depend on the quality appointees we choose to join us to lead this nation in the years ahead. I will look for people who are willing to work hard to do what is best for America, who examine the facts and do what is right whether or not it is popular. I will look for people from across the country and from every walk of life. I welcome all who are ready for this great challenge to apply.

Read that, then consider some of his past appointees and nominees:

Michael D. Brown - appointed to the position of Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response by Bush in 2003.
Qualifications: Um. Well... none, really. He has a BA in public admin and poli-sci from 1978. He had absolutely zero experience in emergency management before joining FEMA.

Lest you think that Brown was the only FEMA official with no business being there-
Patrick Rhode - appointed as Chief of Staff of FEMA.
Qualifications: None. Has aboslutely no experience in emergency management. But, he was an event planner for the Bush campaign. That counts, right?

Scott Morris - Appointed to the position of Deputy Chief of Staff of FEMA.
Qualifications: ... Yeah. None again. No experience what-so-ever in emergency management. Served as a marketing director for an e-business application software company, and served as a media strategist for the Bush campaign.

Claude Allen - Appointed as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and, then, in 2005, appointed to the position of Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, where he provided advice on non-economic policy issues like education, health care, HIV/AIDS, etc.
Points of interest: Supports abstinence only sex education. Opposes legalized abortion. Has made anti-homosexual comments to the press. In other words, exactly the sort of person I'd want in charge of shaping public policy. Yep.

Julie Myers - Became the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a recess appointment.
Points of interest: Lack of law enforcemnt experience

Joseph Schmitz - nominated to be Defense Department Inspector General.
Point of interest: Left his position to take a position with the Prince Group, who are associated with the mercenary group Blackwater USA.

Daniel E. Troy - appointed lead counsel for the FDA.
Point of interest: Has begun shooting down lawsuits against pharmecutical companies over claims that meds caused harmful and unexpected side effects. Oh, right, I almost forgot! Prior to taking this position, Troy was a lobbyist for the drug companies, and, as a lawyer, repeatedly sued the FDA.

Ann-Marie Lynch - appointed as a member of the Health and Human Services Department charged with helping provide advice to the president regarding consumer issues and medical drug policies.
Qualifications: Former drug industry lobbyist who fought attempts to institute drug price caps. After taking her position, pushed for policies that benefited drug companies and blocked reports critical of drug-company claims.

They're not the only ones- Bush has appointed over 100 former lobbyist and advocates into positions where they're expected to help govern the very industries they used to work for.

George Deutsch - Appointed to be the press officer for NASA.
Qualifications: Claimed to have graduated with a BA in journalism from Texas A&M, but didn't graduate until a year after he resigned. Instructed NASA website designers to add the word "theory" after every occurrence of the phrase "Big Bang" on NASA sites, claiming that "this is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue."

Philip Cooney - Appointed to head the Council on Environmental Quality.
Qualifications: Despite the position being of scientific nature, Cooney holds no science experience, but is actually a lawyer and holds a BA in economics. Prior to holding this position he worked as a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute who opposed emissions limits. Later took a position with ExxonMobil.

Eric Keroack - Appointed as deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Qualifications: Keroack is a non-board certified ObGyn who opposes contraception, including the birth control pill, and has claimed that premarital sex impairs one's ability to create successful long-term relationships.

Janet Rehnquist - appointed as Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. Resigned after a Congressional investigation into her actions regarding an audit of Florida's pension fund, and allegations that she forced out top career staff members for politcial reasons.

Kenneth Tomlinson - appointed to chair the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Later resigned in the midst of scandal and accusations that he had used his position to push a decidedly political agenda in an attempt to "purge" the "liberal bias" of the CPB.

John R. Bolton - Nominated to the position of permanent Ambassador to the United Nations. After a filibuster prevented the nomination from succeeding, was appointed via a recess appointment.
Qualifications: Bolton has strongly criticized the UN for most of his career, stating "There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States." There were serious allegations that Bolton abused "power and authority" over intelligence analysts and contractors, including throwing objects, making derogatory remarks about sexual orientation and weight, and other inappropriate remarks.

Hans von Spakovsky - nominated as a commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, later appointed by recess appointment.
Points of interest: Implicated in the recent investigations surrounding the dismissal of US Attorneys. Pushed for policies that would restrict the voting rights of American Indians, and pushed for the Georgia ID voter law (later ruled unconstitutional).

Bradley Schlozman - Appointed as US attorney in Kansas City MO.
Points of interest: Accused of politicizing the civil rights division of the Justice Department. Along with Spakovsky, Schlozman strongly advocated the Georgia Voter ID law. In 2003, approved a plan to redistrict Texas, despite Justice Department lawyer opposition and arguments that it violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

David Safavian - appointed as the top procurement official of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.
Qualifications: Had less than two years of procurement experience prior to be placed as the top procurement official in the White House. Arrested three days after resigning in connection with the Jack Abramoff scandal. The previous appointee to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy has two decades of procurement experience.

Julie MacDonald - appointed to the Interior Department.
Points of interest: repeatedly rejected and mocked staff scientist recommendations about protecting threatened plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act, and urged scientists to more strongly consider the positions of industry and business leaders. Her actions have resulted in adding only 10 species to the endangered/threatened species list per year, compared to 64 a year under Clinton and 59 a year under Bush Sr.

Lurita Doan - Nominated to lead the General Services Administration.
Points of interest: Proposed cutting GSA contract audits which have saved taxpayers over $1 billion in the past two years. Violated the Hatch Act when she used her position to try to come up with plans to help Republican politicians in future elections.

Oh, and let us not forget good ol' Scooter Libby. Assistant to the president. Chief of Staff to the VP. Assistant to the VP for National Security Affairs. Also: convicted of disclosing the classified identity of a covert CIA agent, obstructing justice in a grand jury investigation, perjury, making false statements to federal investigators. Oh, and Bush commuted his sentence. Lovely.

I could go on, but, honestly, it's pretty depressing when you see the level of graft and corruption present in many of the appointees. It's clear that, in a disturbingly large number of cases, it's not strong ethical character or experience that are rewarded- it's political affiliation, loyalty to the president, and backing the party line.

Framing Abortion: Pro-Life vs. Anti-Choice...

I strongly suspect that this comes as no shock to most of you, but I'm very much pro-choice. I've never made a secret of this. Whenever the subject comes up, I'm more than willing to share my thoughts. One of the things that always annoys me is the blatant inconsistency of the so-called "pro-life" crowd. The logical gap between claiming that abortion is murder, but making exceptions for rape and incest is a source of bother to me.

First, terminology: Each side of the debate, obviously, wants to frame the debate in a way that helps their side. That's totally understandable. One side wants to be called "pro-life." While I take it as obvious why this might be, it can't hurt to examine, anyway. By calling themselves "pro-life" they get to select the focus of the debate. The pro-choice side want to focus on the rights of a woman to control her body. In general, most people don't have a problem with the idea that we should have control of our body, so they call themselves "pro-life" because it shifts the focus from the rights of the woman to the alleged rights of the fetus. It's, in large part, an appeal to emotion- the fetus is incapable of defending itself, and is an "innocent" life. So, they frame themselves as the defenders of these helpless little babies. A new tactic of theirs is to call the other side "anti-life." More on that in a second.

I, on the other hand, think of myself as "pro-choice." Again, it should be obvious why, but I think that certain aspects get missed. Pro-choicers are not pro-choicers just because they think that women should have the option to abort, although that's the hot topic. Pro-choicers think that women should have the ability to make choices about all aspects of their reproductive health. Abortion is one choice, but choices about contraception, adoption, etc are all important as well. If a woman wants to have a child, she should be able to make that choice, and shouldn't be shamed or derided for it. She should have all of the tools necessary to make that choice.

The opposition wants to frame this as "anti-life," though. The implication is that supporting a woman's right to choose abortion must, necessarily mean that you endorse killing babies. This is a ridiculous and offensive position to take. Being pro-choice is about supporting whatever choice the woman thinks is best. This is why pro-choicers are accurately thought of as pro-choice, and not anti-life. I've never met someone who thought that all women should be forced to have abortions, which would be the stance of someone who was pro-abortion or anti-life.

Some pro-choicers (myself included, in many instances) have taken to thinking of the other side as anti-choice, or pro-forced-pregnancy. I think that this is both an appeal to emotion, and a fairly accurate assesment of the opposition's stance. The pro-life side, by and large, seem to care a lot less about the life of the fetus, and a lot more about the choices that the pregnant woman made that got her there. The opposition mostly support policies that force women to give birth, or oppose women's ability to make choices- both the choice to get an abortion, as well as the choice to have sex. They may not think that sex should be illegal, but they certainly condemn and criticize women who have sex out of wedlock. The idea seems to be that women who have and enjoy sex "should have known better" and that being forced to have a child is a consequence that will make them be more responsible in the future.

Their opposition to choice doesn't stop there, though. The anti-choice crowd tend to be the same ones that oppose ready access to birth control and accurate sex education. The opposition to a woman having the right to choose begins when they're still girls, with the opposition to safe, accurate information about sex and sexual health. As women get older and consider having sex, it moves into an opposition to women having easy access to birth control. Once a woman is having sex, it takes the form of refusing access to Plan B and other emergency contraception. Once a woman is pregnant, it rolls over into opposition to programs that would provide a pregnant women with ready access to prenatal care, and ends up with a complete and vocal criticism of abortion and attempts to ban and block access to the procedure. And after woman have given birth, where are the pro-life crowd? Are they out trying to help programs that give aid to women in poverty and women who can't afford health care for their children? Go ahead and guess.

Now, I completely understand why they'd bristle about being called anti-choice or pro-forced-pregnancy. When using terminology like that, you're starting from a pretty tough place. It's a lot harder to convince people that your position is the right one when your position is that women should be punished for having sex. It's hard to sway an audience when your position is "We support forcing people to endure a major life change against their will." It's a lot easier if you're saying "but what about the innocent baby?!" Innocent babies aren't a tough sell- even people who dislike children are hard pressed to think that it's good to kill them.

The problem is that the pro-life stance seems to be logically inconsistent. The most vocal pro-lifers positions, upon close inspection, become clearly intellectually dishonest, which helps make it very obvious that their concern isn't so much the life of the fetus as it is moralizing and punishing women who are "foolish enough to get knocked up."

The rape and incest exceptions are key here. The average pro-lifer seems to say "Abortion is wrong and should be outlawed. Except for in cases of rape and maybe incest. In those cases, we should allow it." I think that most people think that abortion should be allowed if the woman's life is threatened (although not everyone thinks so). On the surface, it seems hard to argue against that, right? I mean, nobody wants to force a woman to give birth to her rapist's child, right?
Right?

There's a major problem with claiming to be pro-life, but willing to make exceptions for rape, though. The idea of the pro-life side seems to be that the fetus is an innocent in the whole thing, and should have the same right to life that all of us have. The fetus can't choose to be conceived or not, and it's wrong to kill it... because it's innocent and helpless. That would be a pro-life stance. The fetus is alive. It's wrong to kill it. End of story.

The rape exception throws a wrench into the whole thing, though. The fetus is no less innocent for having been the product of rape or incest. The fetus still had no say in the conception, and still can't speak or defend itself. If your problem is with the idea of killing a fetus, it doesn't make sense to make exceptions for something like rape, since the fetus is no less innocent and no less helpless, etc, for the circumstances of the conception.

The only reason that one might make an exception for rape and remain logically consistent is because you're judging abortion in regards to the woman, and not the fetus. Specifically: you're concerned about her actions. In that case, rape exceptions make perfect sense, since it wasn't any direct action on the part of the woman that led to the conception. That the fetus is an innocent is irrelevent, because the woman didn't have a choice.

Following through, we realize that the reason abortion is wrong isn't because of the status of the fetus, again, but because of the actions of the woman. The pro-life stance is anti-choice, because their objection is to the actions of the woman. It's about controlling the actions of women and controlling sexual identity.
A woman who gets pregnant because she made a choice to have sex is somehow "less than" a woman who is pregnant because of the actions of an other. She shouldn't be allowed to make the choice to have an abortion, because she needs to accept the consequences of sex. In other words, she needs to be taught a lesson. You'll see many anti-choicers using language like that: "She needs to accept the consequences of her actions" or "If she didn't want to get knocked up, she shouldn't have had sex."

In fact, a careful look at most major pro-life arguments shows how quickly the debate takes that tone. Lip-service is paid to the whole "but the innocent baby!" line, but the argument almost always breaks down into a criticisms of the woman and her actions. It's almost always more about her being sexually active and needing to learn her lesson than it is about the life of the fetus.

There are a few people who really are pro-life, I think. There are a lot of people who are anti-choice because they haven't done a lot of personal searching on the issue. For a lot of them, it's a religious issue, or it's something that they've been indoctrinated in, and they're repeating the sound-bites. I've only seen a few people who are logically consistant pro-lifers.

I find it a lot easier to respect pro-lifers like that, even though their position is even more offensive than the average pro-lifer's. I can respect it because those are the people who really believe that abortion is murder. I completely disagree with them, but at least they're being intellectually honest in the debate- they believe that the fetus has a right to life- if you kill one, you're murdering it, and that's wrong. They're not just moralizing to women about sex, they're trying to save lives.

I still think they're wrong, though.

I wrote a lot of this some time ago, but I want to take a moment here to discuss something that really has been bothering me. On one of the sites I go to on a regular basis, a commenter has taken to making blatantly offensive comparisons between abortion and, say, rape or assault.

So why not let men date rape women? I mean, if a guy can't have any other options for sex, why can't he get a girl a little drunk and make her do something she'll regret? After all, he has a right to experience life as a sexual being. Are anti-rapists "forcing abstinence" on unwilling men?
...
We don't allow robbery of grocery stores because we are against "forced starvation," we don't allow embezzlement because we are against "forced poverty," we don't allow rape because we are against "forced celibacy," and we shouldn't allow abortion because we are against "forced birth."

or

I don't think that men should be able to get out of parenthood by kicking their girlfriends in the stomach, even though that would accomplish the unalienable right to decide how and when to become a parent.

These kinds of tactics only further illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of some anti-choicers. Intentionally conflating a woman's right to control her own body with a rapist's forcing himself on another person shows a marked lack of concern for the rights of women. Further, it shows an intentional disregard for the pain and suffering of victims of assault, and a disdain for women who do get abortions. The differences between wanting to control your body's integrity and wanting to force yourself on another person sexually should be obvious to anyone who is being remotely honest and sincere in their beliefs.