Rebecca Traister, How the War on Women Quashed Feminist Stereotypes
This article is pretty gr9 and I had not considered this affect before
We found that there is a strong and highly significant link between state security and women’s security. In fact, the very best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is not its level of wealth, its level of democracy, or its ethno-religious identity; the best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is how well its women are treated. What’s more, democracies with higher levels of violence against women are as insecure and unstable as nondemocracies.
Our findings, detailed in our new book out this month, Sex and World Peace, echo those of other scholars, who have found that the larger the gender gap between the treatment of men and women in a society, the more likely a country is to be involved in intra- and interstate conflict, to be the first to resort to force in such conflicts, and to resort to higher levels of violence. On issues of national health, economic growth, corruption, and social welfare, the best predictors are also those that reflect the situation of women. What happens to women affects the security, stability, prosperity, bellicosity, corruption, health, regime type, and (yes) the power of the state. The days when one could claim that the situation of women had nothing to do with matters of national or international security are, frankly, over. The empirical results to the contrary are just too numerous and too robust to ignore.
The war on women is not exclusive to liberal women. Just because a woman won’t vote for Obama doesn’t mean the restrictive measures sweeping state legislatures across the country - and attempts at the federal level - can’t affect her.
The “war on women” - referencing legislation that restricts access to abortion, contraceptives, family planning and other reproductive health services - is applicable to all women. It does not apply only to the most liberal of us. Take note:
- “Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method. […] Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.” [Guttmacher]
- “In the United States, publicly financed family planning prevented 1.94 million unwanted pregnancies in 2006, according to the Guttmacher Institute… The result of those averted pregnancies was 810,000 fewer abortions, the institute said. Publicly financed contraception pays for itself, by reducing money spent through Medicaid on childbirth and child care. Guttmacher found that every $1 invested in family planning saved taxpayers $3.74.” [Nick Kristof]
With the Rosen vs. Romney debate stewing, I’m reminded that the war on women is about gender, not the political ideology of various women. Hillary Rosen deserves the heat she’s receiving, but this condescending comment is not exclusive. Women still ride the bittersweet line of being scolded for working too much while not spending enough time at home and being labeled as a weak and ineffective member of society for staying home to raise their children. (It’s also in extremely poor taste to criticize the work ethic of a woman who is battling multiple sclerosis.)
Even for women who do not face life-altering medical conditions, raising kids is not an easy job. I think Michele Bachmann is a wretched lawmaker, but I bet she’s worked her ass off to raise her five children and 23 foster children.
Let’s clear the air on one thing right now: Rosen’s comment does not negate the existence of the GOP’s “war on women.” Additionally, one asinine remark does not signify a war here, unless a slew of Democrats come out of the woodwork slamming stay-at-home mothers.
However, passing countless laws restricting access to contraceptives, attempting to criminalize abortions at a detectable heartbeat, and repealing a law that helps women fight wage discrimination does signify a “war on women.” And Romney is still not a good choice for women who care about reproductive health for all. As President, I don’t think he’d ever be proactive on social issues like reproductive rights, accessible contraception or well-financed family planning… no condescending Democratic strategist can change my mind on that belief. [Photo credit: ABC/Getty Images]
Again, forcing or coercing someone into being vaginally/anally/orally penetrated with or without force is rape. Being forced to be vaginally penetrated with an object in order to receive an abortion is rape.
hunnichild (via brienne—of—tarth)
inb4 someone changes this all to “uterus-bearers”
Saturday Night Live
“Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down.
Higher education can’t be a luxury – it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.” - President Obama
Pro-life Republicans are proposing a bill to outlaw abortions performed on the basis of sexism or racism. I don’t know how they would determine whether a particular abortion meets that criterion, but according to the law, the doctors involved could be penalized. The only effect this law could have is to make it harder for women, especially women of color, to get abortions.
It’s called the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act”.
I honestly thought the name of the act was a joke. Did they just chose the only historical woman and african-american figures they remembered?