UPDATE: Why I will NEVER vote for Palin

Remember the controversy I pointed out at the end of this post regarding Sarah Palin and rape kits?

This is what I said then:

"Palin failed to address the fact that sexual assault victims in Wasilla were charged $300 to $1200 apiece for collection of evidence in their cases (i.e. rape kits). NOTE: Palin did not institute this policy; it was in place before her election. However, I am disheartened by the fact that during two terms as mayor she failed to address the policy. Thumbs down to Palin on this one."

Unfortunately, new evidence (i.e. the Wasilla annual budgets) has come to life, proving me wrong. A new article from the Huffington Post explains everything very well, and is even nice enough to provide you with links to Wasilla's budgets so you can do the math for yourself if you happen to be a doubter. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html

The gist of the article? The former police chief of Wasilla (the one Palin fired) had included a line item in his budget requests to cover the cost of exams for sexual assault victims. The police chief Palin appointed after firing the previous chief HALVED this budget request in 97-98, and then halved it again in 98-99 (that year he only spent $205 of the $3000 he requested). Palin either (a) had to have known about the change in policy requiring sexual assault victims to pay for their testing kits, because, as mayor, she had to approve the budget, or (b) had to have fallen behind in her mayoral duties, by not thoroughly investigating requested budgets.

Either way, this is disgusting. Again: NO WAY, NO HOW, NO to McCain / Palin!

Why this Feminist Bride Wants NOTHING to do with the McCain / Palin ticket

Disclaimer: Sorry Transatlantic Bride - I found your post so interesting that I decided I'd do one, too. ;)

And what better place to post my complaints about this year's republican ticket's failure to promote the interests of women than here?

Leaving aside the fact that I find this pick INCREDIBLY insulting (I'm sorry, but I don't vote based on the sex of the candidate - my vagina does not have a voting booth hidden inside, thank you very much), neither candidate seems to really be doing much - correction ANYTHING - to help women. For McCain, it's pretty easy to find flaws - his voting record is out their for the world to see. For an inexperienced first terms governor, it's a bit harder. Largely because she hasn't yet told us much of what she stands for.

And now, what you've been waiting for. A (brief) list of things McCain and/or Palin have done, or as the case may be, NOT done, to assist women and girls in the realization of their rights:

• McCain skipped the vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. He later said that had he attended the vote, he would have voted against it because women "need education and training" rather than a bill that guarantees pay equity. [Source: http://tinyurl.com/6gufa3]
  
• McCain has repeatedly opposed comprehensive sex education and supported abstinence-only education. [Source: http://tinyurl.com/6oc6a7] For more info on why this is specifically anti-woman and anti-girls, please see Legal Momentum's recent report "Sex, Lies and Stereotypes: How Abstinence-Only Programs Harm Women and Girls," available at http://tinyurl.com/5e8xjq
• McCain voted to keep the Global Gag Rule, preventing millions of women around the world from receiving access to reproductive health care by denying funding to any organization that even MENTIONS abortion (note: these organizations do not have to perform or refer clients to abortion providers in order to be denied funding).[Boxer Amendment to S.600, vote 83, 4/05/05]
• Voted to de‐fund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization that provides family‐planning services – not abortion – for the world’s poorest women [Boxer amendment to FY’06‐07 Foreign Relations authorization bill, S.600, 4/5/05]
  
• Declined to help reduce the need for abortion and improve maternal health by opposing effort to require insurance coverage for prescription birth control, improve access to emergency contraception, and provide more women with prenatal health care[Murray motion to waive Budget Act to allow vote on Murray/Reid prevention‐package amendment to “Partial‐Birth” Abortion Ban Act, S.3, 3/11/03.]
  
• McCain has publicly and repeatedly stated that it is his goal to overturn Roe v. Wade
  
• McCain voted to maintain restrictions on access to abortion for women in the military, even if they use their own money [Murray/Snowe amendment to FY’04 National Defense authorization bill, S.1050, 5/22/03]
  
• McCain supported the Federal Abortion Ban, even though the law contains no exceptions for the health of pregnant women [“Partial‐Birth” Abortion Ban Act, H.R.1833, 12/7/95]
  
• McCain voted to restrict funding to Title X's Family Planning Program. [Motion to Invoke Cloture; Family Planning Amendments of 1989, S.110, 9/26/90]
• McCain voted NOT to amend the federal bankruptcy code to prevent people who commit violence against family planning clinics to avoid financial responsibility for their actions by filing bankruptcy [Bankruptcy Reform Act, H.R.2415, 12/7/00; Schumer amendment to Bankruptcy Reform Act, S.256, 3/8/05]
  
• McCain voted against an amendment that protected Medicaid funding (funding that is used to provide thousands of low-income women and girls with reproductive and other health services) from being cut [H.J.R. 2, Vote #21, 1/23/03]]
• McCain voted against requiring health insurance carriers to cover the cost of contraception. [Murray Amendment, S.Amdt 258 to S. 3, vote 45, 3/11/03]
• McCain opposed legislation that required that abstinence only education curricula be medically-accurate and scientifically-based. [Lautenberg/Menendez Teen Pregnancy Prevention Amendment, S.Amdt. 4689 to S. 403, vote 214, 7/25/06]
• McCain voted against the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE), which established criminal and civil penalties for those who use force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to interfere with access to reproductive‐health facilities [Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, S.636, 5/12/94].
• Sarah Palin opposes abortion in all circumstances, save where the woman's life is in danger. She opposes abortion even in cases of danger to a woman's health, and in cases of rape or incest. [Source: http://tinyurl.com/5uptw8]
• Palin failed to address the fact that sexual assault victims in Wasilla were charged $300 to $1200 apiece for collection of evidence in their cases (i.e. rape kits). NOTE: Palin did not institute this policy; it was in place before her election. However, I am disheartened by the fact that during two terms as mayor she failed to address the policy. Thumbs down to Palin on this one.

If you'd like more information on McCain's anti-woman policies, you can read this fact sheet. It covers his vote on all things reproductive rights related (NOT just abortion-related) http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf

Got something you think I should add to the wall o' shame? Leave a note and I'll do my best to fit it in. And stay tuned for the next episode of Confessions, where I reveal precisely how I think the Democratic ticket IS addressing women's issues.

A Feminist Bridal Shower?

So my mother has been helping to coordinate my shower (yes, I know *gasp*), but mainly it's the travel arrangements. We've been trying to come up with a date that works for my cousin (who's supposedly throwing the shower), my sister (my MOH who works an ungodly number of hours each week), my FMIL (who's pretty active with her church and community), and me (who happens to live a thousand miles away from all of these people).

Anyway....

I thought with all the talk about showers going on, I'd post this little tidbit I found on feministing.com (if you don't already go there as your morning wake-me-up along with your coffee, you should). The author talks about her attempts to find shower games that aren't quite as blatantly sexist as this one:

Everyone is asked to share the chores around the house that they hate the most and the reason why they hate the chore.

The chore is then replaced with the word "sex" and reread aloud. They then end up with . . . "I hate sex because (the reason they hate their chore)"

(You know - because all women simply must hate sex ::eyeroll::)

She's right, of course. Think of all of the bridal showers you've been to. Now think of the games. Games like "What's in the Bag?" where guests are supposed to write down all of the items they think might be in the bride's purse and get points for guessing correctly - because, of course, we all know that women simply live out of their cavernous purses (note: I didn't even OWN a purse, let alone carry one until I broke down and bought a Coach bag to carry my laptop); or the Apron Game, where guests are supposed to pin cooking utensils all over the bride and then recite them from memory, because, of course, women are the cooks in the family (nevermind the fact that I can burn water, while FI is generally a decent chef when he finds the time).

You know what I'd really love? A shower game that deals with MY interests - not the interests of some stereotypical (I might even say mythical) bride-to-be. Like instead of bridal bingo, let's play women's rights bingo.

Anyway...so now I'm ever so slightly terrified that I'll be subjected to some horribly sexist game at the shower, and then I'll just have to say something (because that's just who I am), which will put a damper on the whole "fun" part of the shower.... And, yeah, yeah, I know I should be grateful that someone is throwing us a shower. And I am, really, I am. But is it too much to ask that the sexism be toned down as much as possible?

Thoughts? Suggestions?

The New Name

I must be the worst blogger on the planet. I'm officially done with the bar, I don't have a job yet, and I STILL can't find time to blog? Yeah...I suck at blogging.

But my slacking aside, I thought I'd point people's attention to the fact that the name at the top of this blog has officially changed - to "Confessions of Feminist Bride". I'm hoping that this might free my inner writer to post more often. Because, you see, I'm afraid I'm not finding this whole wedding business thing to be nearly as exciting as all of my activist political goings-on. And E08 on the Nest has officially redeemed my wedding planning exuberance in my fiance's eyes. ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'll still be writing about my ever-so-exciting weddings finds and plans (e.g. you're bound to soon see the mess that I will be creating out of the dupioni and cardstock I ordered to create invitations) but I think I'm feeling like the new and improved name will allow me to focus a little more on the things I am finding most important about the institution of marriage right now, i.e. the inequalities is can foster, and the potential it has too erase those inequalities.

To start things of (and yes, I know this isn't exactly wedding related, but it's family-related, and many would consider that part and parcel of marriage...), I'm reading this phenomenal book by Susan J. Douglas and Meredith W. Michaels. I stopped by my favorite neighborhood bookstore while I was packing for my bar trip vacation down to Holden Beach (hurray for sand between your toes!) and picked up "The Mommy Myth." I'm not that far into it yet (I have to admit that I read some fluff on the way down here - "Angels & Demons") but so far I'm finding it excellent. It's an intellectual, yet incredibly humorous and entertaining, examination of the ways in which motherhood has been idealized to such a degree that it is unattainable by many, if not most, women. Definitely pick it up when you get a chance.

Until later (probably tomorrow when the silk arrives),

~ Heather

What's In a Name?

Wow...so my apologies for being away for so long, but studying for and taking the NY bar exam kinda saps your extra time and energy. For realz. But I'm finished now (HURRAY!) so I have some free time to play around with wedding planning while emailing lots of resumes and waiting for the job calls to start coming in.

During this awe-inducing period of a lack of required things to do, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the ever-pressing name-change debate. The day after the bar, I stumbled to my laptop, booted up, and went to my fav wedding website, the Knot, for a day of lazing on the couch, watching bad made-for-tv movies and knotting.

The first question I noticed seemed like a simple one: "Help a feminist address her invites." Ah, but of course, on the Planning & Etiquette board, NOTHING etiquette related is simple. In my women's studies-trained, feminist-minded brain, addressing an invite to:

"Mr. and Mrs. John Doe"

is the ultimate in a line of sexist wedding etiquette related nonsense. Do women who choose to change their last names also lose their first names in the process? In the mind of the world's great etiquette nazis, apparently so. But then, I'm of the opinion that words MEAN something; they have a material effect in the world (i.e. the words we choose can change the world - for better OR worse). In this case, refusing to acknowledge a woman's first name once she's married is a de facto erasure of her identity.

And it's not as innocent as it looks. For instance, when I questioned other brides about WHY an invite had to be addressed this way, I was told that it was "tradition," "etiquette, "and that adding the woman's first name either (a) separated the man's first name from his last (apparently a gasp-worthy etiquette blunder) and/or (b) it was simply "too wordy." But when I asked whether addressing an invite to Mr. and Mrs. JANE Doe would be appropriate, I received silence. A very telling silence. Because, obviously, this second option would be just as brief as using John Doe, yet no one was willing to do it.

Women (and men) have fought too long and too hard to bring women OUT of the shadows simply to have them thrust back into darkness due to some antiquated notions about who the head of a household is or should be. Following a sexist tradition just because it's "tradition" is an inherent acceptance of the sexism behind the tradition - and that's just wrong.

This debate, of course, sparked a new debate. Should married women change their names at all? Was it anti-feminist to do so? Asking the question is, of course, itself loaded. Why not ask if married men should change their names? More and more are deciding to hyphenate both names or creating entirely new names in the process, so the procedure isn't SOLELY related to women any more (even if the overwhelming majority of name change applicants are female).

Women getting married are often forced to endure criticism no matter what choice they make about thier surname. If they take their husband's name, they criticized for beind too traditional. If they keep their own, they criticized for being a (*gasp*) feminist, and told that their children won't feel connected to them, told that their husband's name might die out (oh the horror). And god forbid they hyphenate their last names. Because, after all, what if your hypothetical child then decides to marry someone with a hyphenated name. The world might just explode from the chaos that would create!

And for women who are well-known in their fields, the task is even more daunting. What if your clients (both old, current, and new) don't recognize you anymore? For lawyers, particularly, this can be an issue. In New York (as elsewhere) an attorney who changes her name must wait for board acceptance of her new name (which can take anywhere from 1 month to a year) before she can practice under that name.

Reports indicate that more and more women are choosing NOT to change their names; not surprising given the hooplah that one has to go through to make sure that social security cards, credit cards, banks, mortgages, student loans, jobs, insurance policies, retirement plans, magazines, etc all must be notified of the change.

This upsurge in non-name change marriages has led to a post-feminist backlash. More and more women are speaking out against those who keep their given surnames, claiming that women should be "free" to change their names to their husbands without "feminists" badgering them about their personal decisions. While I agree with many that the decision to change one's name is a personal one, I think that the societal implications of a personal decision should also be considered. For women, changing one's name upon marriage is based upon a sexist tradition, denying married women their autonomy, and the decision to follow this tradition shouldn't be made lightly. However, changing your name doesn't HAVE to indicate your acceptance of sexist values. Many women do not feel any connection to their birth surname or feel a distinct dislike for it (enter the Butts, Bottoms, Weiners, Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenbergerdorffs, as well as the simply unfortunately named - Ms. Ginger Snaps- here). Others weigh their attachment to their surname with their future husband's attachment to his against their desire for a common name.

I think my point is that, as any good feminist will tell you, every woman should have the right to change, or not change her name as she sees fit. Feminism is, after all about permitting women to make their own choices about their own lives. I guess all that I would ask is that this choice be made intelligently, with full awareness of the historical beginnings of the practice and to the current societal implications of changing one's name, and not blindly done to accomodate "tradition."

.....

For what it's worth, our invites will be addressed to: Mr. John and Mrs. Jane Doe (assuming spouses share the same name) or Mrs. Jane Doe and Mr. John Smith - etiquette be damned. But I'm still not sure precisely what I'm going to do in terms of my own name change. The feminist in me is screaming that I shouldn't give in, that I should keep my current surname - but given that (a) I'm not yet terribly well known in my field, (b) I have no real attachment to my surname (it's not my birth name), and (c) my fiance actually has some level of attachment to his last name, I'm leaning towards changing it.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see...