Showing posts with label agency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label agency. Show all posts

Heinous Radical Anti-Choice Law Passes in Indiana

There is a reason I call Indiana the Conservative Legislation Lab: As I've said many times before, if you want to know what garbage policies are coming down the conservative pipeline, look no further than Indiana, where Hoosiers are used as guinea pigs by the American Legislative Exchange Council, aka ALEC, which has a massive influence in the state, to test out the latest and greatest in Republican governance theory.

The Republican takeover in Indiana has been extraordinary. And people who sneer at Hoosiers from outside the state (where I grew up and lived most of my life) to simply vote out the Republicans, who are the majority, or to vote in better Democrats, don't understand what the population is facing there.

Like everywhere else: Gerrymandering and voter suppression and dark money and ratfucking. But also the cutting edge in authoritarian consolidation of power. See: Mike Pence and Glenda Ritz.

And it's not like Indiana doesn't have decent Democrats in state office. To the contrary: In 2011, Hoosier Dems fled the state to deny the Indiana House of Representatives the required quorum needed to pass a union-busing "right-to-work" bill. They were in hiding out of state for nearly six weeks, only returning once the Republican majority agreed to take the bill off the table — and after having held out while Republicans fined them and suspended their pay.

It's also important to understand that the Republican-held legislature routinely acts in contravention of the majority of the people in the state. Just one of many examples was 2014's same-sex marriage ban, which was proposed despite the fact that Indiana already had a state law restricting same-sex marriage; despite the fact that legislators were acting in flagrant disregard of the will of the people, who by a clear majority did not want such an amendment added to their state constitution; and despite the fact that, instead, a majority of Hoosiers wanted the existing ban repealed.

All of this is backdrop to the latest bit of heinous fuckery passed into law in Indiana, so you can understand what progressives are up against in the state:


Not only does the law require healthcare providers to launch an abortion inquiry, but it further requires healthcare providers to report "abortion complications" to the state:
A new state law directs Indiana doctors and hospitals to investigate every time a woman seeks treatment for a physical or psychological condition whether she previously had an abortion that is in any way connected to the ailment.

If so, the care provider is obligated starting July 1 to submit a detailed "abortion complications" report to the State Department of Health, or risk being charged with a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, for each instance of noncompliance.

Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb, who routinely describes himself as "pro-life," approved Senate Enrolled Act 340 with little fanfare Sunday afternoon prior to departing on a three-day Canadian trade mission.

He said similar reporting requirements already are in place in 27 states and exist solely to gather information about abortion complications, without restricting access to the procedure.

Indiana's new law, however, employs a broad definition of abortion complication that ranges from an immediate physical injury due to a surgical abortion to psychological or emotional pain, including anxiety and sleeplessness, that arises possibly years or decades after having an abortion.

Under the statute, doctors who identify an abortion complication must then report to the state: the patient's age, race, and county of residence; the type, date, and location of the abortion; a list of each complication and treatment; the date of every visit to every doctor relating to the complication; and any abortion drugs used by the patient and how they were procured.
This is utterly despicable. It needs national attention. I hope people will amplify what is happening, as the ACLU considers whether to mount (yet another) challenge to (yet another) heinous anti-choice law passed in Indiana.

And I hope that as people do amplify it, they convey the reality of what Hoosiers are facing in their state, instead of making shitty jokes about Republican voters getting what they deserve or casually admonishing progressives to move, which isn't always possible and which shouldn't be a requirement, anyway. No one should have to abandon their home to be safe from autocratic abuses of power.

Tell this story. And tell it in a way in which you align yourself with Hoosier resistance, not in a way in which you stand outside their struggle and shame them for being victimized by the same party that threatens us all, in every corner of this country.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: War on agency. NB: Not only women need access to abortion.]

"Everything I've heard from Donald Trump and his fellow Republican candidates for president has convinced me that they have no regard for women or our ability to maintain autonomy over our own lives and futures. They all want limited government—except when it comes to intruding on women's health. Reproductive health and rights are a fundamental part of women's health and rights. And reproductive health includes abortion. So defending women's health and rights means defending access to abortion—not just in principle but in practice. In 1995, I traveled to Beijing for the Fourth U.N. World Conference on Women. I addressed human rights abuses in China—including violations of reproductive rights. The message of that conference still echoes around the world today: women's rights are human rights. And reproductive rights are human rights, too."—Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, affirming her commitment to abortion access, in a great essay.

[H/T to Shaker Lysis.]

Open Wide...

An Observation

[Content Note: Hostility to consent.]

There is a video, which I am not sharing here for reasons that will become obvious, of North West, the two-year-old daughter of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, being taken to ballet class by her nanny. (As an aside, her mother usually accompanies her to ballet class, but is currently heavily pregnant, which I suspect is why the nanny was taking her.) Paparazzi snap millions of photos and shoot video of her. In her little toddler voice, she says, "No pictures! I said no pictures!" Her nanny repeats, "She said no pictures."

The paparazzi make "Aww, how adorable!" noises, while they continue to take pictures of her.

Against her explicit request that they not.

The hostility to consent starts so fucking early.

Her "sassy" response to be photographed is "adorable," read the news stories. She is "taking control of her image," just like her parents!

They assign grown-up motivations to a child, and reduce her resistance to being exploited to something "cute," in order to justify this gross disrespect of her consent.

There are people who will certainly be inclined to argue that North West is fair game, because her parents are famous, and/or because her parents have shared images of her.

But those arguments are irrelevant—not least of which because her parents weren't there. North West was asserting her own agency. She was saying in her own voice that she didn't want her photo taken.

And everyone laughed at how adorable it was. This tiny female child imagining that what she wants matters.

I heard you, Nori.

Open Wide...

Dear Vice President Biden: Nope.

[Content Note: War on agency. Video may autoplay at article link.]

Via Erin Matson, I read this interview with Vice President Joe Biden about abortion choice, in which he makes a fairly common argument among Christian lawmakers that he personally doesn't support abortion but doesn't feel compelled to tell other people to agree with his view. In the familiar parlance, he is personally anti-choice but politically pro-choice.

But then he goes on to argue that there is room for anti-choicers in the Democratic Party:

"I'm prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there's human life and being, but I'm not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view," he said.

He added that there is room in the Democratic Party for people who believe abortion should be illegal.

"Absolutely, positively," he said. "And that's been my position for as long as I've been engaged."
I have a problem with this.

Being personally against abortion, as in you'd never get one, cool. (Although I certainly have thoughts about cis men who will never, ever, face the possibility of wanting or needing an abortion even espousing a personal opposition to abortion.) Making room for people who want to criminalize it? Fuck that.

Fuck that because abortion policy isn't just about personal abortion beliefs. It's about one's beliefs regarding individual agency and religious freedom.

Fuck that because making room for anti-choice policy is making room for the state-sanctioned enforcement of religious belief and control of pregnant bodies.

This idea that we can wrench apart abortion policy from the human beings affected by limited abortion access is full-tilt garbage. You aren't anti-choice in a vacuum. You are anti-choice in a world where that has social and personal consequences for human beings.

It's so easy to say "I'm against abortion" and avoid saying "I'm against individual agency and freedom from religion." And it's so easy because we talk about abortion as an abstract thing, rather than a choice made by human beings whose social value is affected by access to that choice.

"I'm against abortion" means, in practice, "I'm against granting agency, autonomy, respect, dignity, and religious freedom to pregnant people." (And people who may become pregnant.) All the protesting in the world that's not what you really mean, or that isn't your intent, doesn't matter. That's what anti-choice policy means IN PRACTICE. And the only way to argue you don't mean that is to write human beings who want/need abortions out of the equation.

Abstract abortion policy is mendacious horseshit that allows policymakers to disappear the people affected by that policy.

Abstract abortion policy allows a deeply dishonest conversation in which its participants conspire to pretend that criminalizing abortion merely means limiting access, and doesn't also mean limiting the social value and rights of all people who can get pregnant.

That our Democratic vice-president thinks there's room for that limitation in his party is appalling. And the only way he gets away with it is because we allow rhetoric that divorces abortion access from human value conferred by agency.

Irrespective of whether I ever get an abortion, whether I have the right to get one defines the boundaries of my agency. And the boundaries of my agency define the value and completeness of my humanity, under the law.

So, no. There is no room for anti-choice policy in any political party who wants me to believe my comprehensive humanity is respected.

Abortion policy cannot be separated from the value of the bodies that are affected by that policy.

And if Vice President Biden thinks I would cast a vote for anyone who doesn't understand, or elides, that reality, he needs to think again.

Open Wide...

Anti-Choicers, in a Nutshell

[Content Note: Anti-choice fuckery.]

Sarah Palin is an asshole of epic proportions, which is not news, but, even based on the garbage expectations she's set with her previous nonsense, this is pretty amazing:

Former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin hopes that Hillary Clinton will rethink her position on abortion as her first grandchild arrives.

Palin said in an interview with "Extra" airing Wednesday that having a grandchild could "broaden [Clinton's] worldview" with respect to the national debt, which would affect her grandchild down the road, but also in terms of the "sanctity of life."

"It's a real baby! It's not some disposable something – and I know that's gonna be controversial – but those who, perhaps they're in this position now as a parent or grandparent, they realize that sanctity of life, how innocent, how precious it is," Palin told "Extra" host Mario Lopez. "Of all places it should be in the womb that these babies are protected. So maybe even on a social issue like that she'll open her eyes."
So, here we have another example of an anti-choicer espousing the ferociously absurd idea that pro-choice people have never thought about their positions and what it means to advocate for legal abortion, much like they assert that abortion-seeking people have never thought about their choice before they show up to a clinic.

I'm reasonably certain that Hillary Clinton has spent more time thinking about her position on abortion than Sarah Palin has spent thinking about any subject of value to modern politics.

We also have another example of an anti-choicer making the claim that pro-choice policy can only be sustained in a hermetically sealed vault of abstraction. Once Clinton sees her grandchild...! (Because having a grandchild is so much more "real" than having given birth herself?) It is a perfect mimicry of the argument mounted in defense of mandated ultrasound legislation, based on the faulty premise that if only abortion-seeking women et. al. see the fetus growing inside of them, they will change their minds.

I'm reasonably certain that Hillary Clinton understands the biology and reality of reproduction.

And finally, we have another example of anti-choicers' profound hostility to agency. Not only are they hostile to women's agency when it comes to allowing women to make the best reproductive choices for ourselves, but they are hostile to the very idea of our having agency at all, even in our own thoughts.

What's "controversial" about what Palin is saying is not what she thinks it is. What's controversial about her statements is that she is asserting to know Hillary Clinton's mind more than Hillary Clinton does.

That assertion of ownership over women's minds and bodies is the defining feature of the anti-choice movement. And Palin may be an asshole, but she's a terrific politician. She's definitely giving her base exactly what they want to hear.

Open Wide...

Discussion Thread: Pro-Consent Films

[Content Note: Discussion of consent.]

Last night, I was flipping channels when I saw that sex, lies & videotape was airing, which is one of my "must stop and watch" films. I caught it right at the beginning, so what I'm saying is I stayed up way too late last night.

Anyway!

Watching it for the one billionth time, I was thinking (again) how many interesting things the film has to say about consent, agency, and boundaries. And I was trying to think of some other films that have interesting things to say on those subjects, and wowee wow the list was pretty short!

So, here's a thread for sharing films (and/or TV shows) that have smart commentary around consent, agency, and boundaries. Not limited just to sexual interactions, as Elementary is a show, for example, which has many good insights around consent and boundaries totally outside of sexual interactions.

Whaddaya got?

Open Wide...

Bloomberg's Soda Ban Halted by Judge

[Content Note: Fat bias; eliminationism. Background: Blame the Fatties; Today in Fatties Ruin It for Everyone.]

New York City Mayor and "Anti-Obesity Crusader" Michael Bloomberg's proposed ban on sugary drinks in sizes greater than 16 oz at restaurants, street carts, and movie theaters has been struck down by a judge one day before it was supposed to take effect:

In an unusually critical opinion, Justice Milton A. Tingling Jr. of State Supreme Court in Manhattan called the limits "arbitrary and capricious," echoing the complaints of city business owners and consumers who had deemed the rules unworkable and unenforceable, with confusing loopholes and voluminous exemptions.

...The mayor's plan, which he pitched as a novel effort to combat obesity, aroused worldwide curiosity and debate — and the ire of the American soft-drink industry, which undertook a multimillion-dollar campaign to block it, flying banners from airplanes over Coney Island, plastering subway stations with advertisements and filing the lawsuit that led to the ruling.
It gives me no joy that it was corporate pressure, rather than respect for fat people's agency, that resulted in this ruling, but I'm nonetheless glad for the ruling, which subverts the execution of a campaign that centers fat hatred.

As with all of these campaigns, lest anyone imagine I am seeing fat hatred in a "health initiative" where none exists:
Mr. Bloomberg said he would immediately appeal, and at a quickly arranged news conference, he fiercely defended the rationale for the rules...

"I've got to defend my children, and yours, and do what's right to save lives," the mayor said. "Obesity kills. There's no question it kills."
Actually, there is a lot of question about that. People do not die of "obesity." Some fat people die from complications of what are commonly known as "obesity-related diseases," like heart disease and diabetes, but those diseases have only been shown to be correlated with fat, not caused by fat. (Which is why thin people have them, too.) So it's not even accurate to assert that obesity kills indirectly.

This, however, is a thing that is accurate to say: Fat hatred kills people all the time.

One of the most widely linked comments I have ever left in this space is this one, in response to a commenter who took issue with the idea that fat people are an endangered population.
No, there is not a documented epidemic of brutal murders of fat people for being fat, but there is a documented epidemic of failure to provide life-saving healthcare: Google will easily help you find stories of fat people who died while emergency crews laughed at their weight and appearance, of fat people who were told they should lose weight to fix problems actually caused by blood clots, cancer, internal injuries, infections, and myriad other problems that later killed them, because their doctors couldn't see past their fat to properly treat them. Google will also easily help you find stories of medical equipment that cannot accommodate fat bodies, of anesthetists who accidentally kill fat people in surgery, of doctors who prescribe wrong doses for fat bodies, of drug trials that make no attempt to include fat patients. Google will also easily help you find stories of fat people who did not seek life-saving healthcare because they had been so viciously fat-shamed by doctors their whole lives that they had given up hope of finding sensitive and caring providers who would treat them.
The blog First Do No Harm is an invaluable resource in its documentation of fat prejudice in healthcare. (See also. And here. Also over here. Etc.)

Obesity doesn't kill, but fat hatred does.

Additionally: "A 2013 study reported in the Journal of Eating Disorders documented that weight bias and stigma cause both physiological and psychological harm."
Internalized weight bias was associated with greater impairment in both the physical and mental domains of health-related quality of life. Internalized weight bias also contributed significantly to the variance in physical and mental health impairment over and above the contributions of BMI, age, and medical comorbidity. Consistent with the association between prejudice and physical health in other minority groups, these findings suggest a link between the effects of internalized weight-based discrimination and physical health. Research is needed on strategies to prevent weight bias and its internalization on both a societal and individual level.
Would that Mayor Bloomberg were half as concerned about the harm he and his fellow "anti-obesity" crusaders are doing to fat people's health.

I can (and do) choose not to drink sugary soda. I cannot, however, choose a life that is free from other people's public, shaming, harmful, bullying, dehumanizing, eliminationist fat hatred.

If you don't care at least as much about that as whether I drink a fucking soda, you're not interested in my health. And I'm not going to humor that sanctimonious codswallop anymore.

Open Wide...

On Naming, Identity, and Choice: Part II

[Part One is here.]

So. One of the results of a culture of judgment in which women's choices about everything from the shoes they wear to the sexual partners they take is that there emerges a language of easy responses to common judgments.

Some of these are reflexive qualifications, like the familiar, "I'm a feminist, but I don't hate men," which is a preemptive response to the ubiquitous judgment that feminism is not about hating patriarchy, but hating male people.

And some of them are responses like those being discussed inside the conversation about name-changing. The example I used in part one was: "I wanted my whole family to have the same last name." The examples Jill Filipovic used in her piece were:

"We want our family to share a name" or "His last name was better" or "My last name was just my dad's anyway" – all reasons that make no sense.
Leaving aside the entirely subjective assessment of whether those reasons "make sense," if they don't "make sense" to you, well, maybe there's a reason for that. And that reason might be that they are being employed as easy responses to a common judgment.

I want to clearly acknowledge that some women cite those reasons authentically. Period. Pause. Break.

I also want to clearly acknowledge that some women cite those reasons uncritically, as in they've never really thought about it much, but those reasons resonate to one degree or another. Period. Pause. Break.

And there are women who cite those reasons because their prevalence makes them an easy deflection of someone impertinently asking her, directly or obliquely, to justify her choice.

This is a thing that humans do. Particularly when we are in a vulnerable spot, like being asked to justify an intimate decision irrespective of our having invited the discussion, humans tend to reach for familiar turns of phrase that we expect will suffice, specifically because of their familiarity.

We intuit, quite reasonably, that words which a judgmental inquisitor has heard before, and thus can easily be placed within an existent framework, will halt the inquisition. And that tends to work even when the person doing the asking doesn't like your answer.

It's great that there are women who are willing to publicly discuss decisions about name-changing! I love so much when women speak and write about the choices they make through the specific and unique prism of their individual circumstances!

BUT. No one is obliged to do that. And none of us are entitled to reasons that "make sense." None of us are entitled to forthright answers about complex personal decisions on demand.

If we can acknowledge that asking women to publicly comment on and justify their reproductive decisions and circumstances is wrong, then we need to similarly be able to acknowledge that asking women to publicly comment on and justify other personal, intimate decisions is wrong.

(Especially when we acknowledge there are women who change their names for immensely personal and sometimes traumatic reasons. No woman should be expected to disclose a history of familial abuse or sexual violence/stalking in order to be deemed A Good Feminist Who Changed Her Name for an Acceptable Reason.)

There is a deep tension surrounding the way we set off as fair game the very personal decisions regarding name-changing, in a way we do not for equivalently personal women's choices.

On the one hand, people are arguing that YOUR NAME IS YOUR IDENTITY! and it's so goddamn important that you should never change it for any reason ever—and, on the other hand, people are treating name-changing like something so casual that it's NO BIG WHOOP to demand women to justify their choices to anyone who asks.

Your name is everything when we want to judge you. Your name is nothing special when we demand you publicly account for your decisions around it. It's exactly as important or unimportant as we deem it to be in order to audit your choices.

This is bullshit. This is bullshit.

It might not be the worst thing if a woman offering a nonsensical familiar reason for a personal choice were understood to mean fuck off, it's none of your business.

Because seriously? It isn't.

Open Wide...

I Never Say The F-Word

I'm a feminist.

It may not seem like a secret: after all, I post it on my Facebook page, on my Twitter account, and on my website. I comment on feminist sites, am part of moderation teams for feminist sites, and almost all of the writings on my blog are feminist in nature. To the online community and my online friends, the fact that I am a feminist should be no shocker.

But in real life, in what I like to call "facespace", I never say the F-word, I never call myself a feminist.

I'm not ashamed of what and who I am. But I live in a deeply conservative community where I don't feel safe being openly "out" about my social and political beliefs. I live and navigate in a world where being openly and vocally known as a feminist can result in serious pushback in my personal and professional life. So while I don't actively hide who I am in facespace, I am very careful never to advertise it. And because they don't ask, and because I don't tell, and because the bulk of people I live and work with are proud non-users of social media, I pass relatively painlessly through my conservative environment.

I live in a community where I have been brought up short by a female coworker -- a woman engineer like me, a divorcee and survivor of an abusive marriage also just like me -- stopping me in the middle of an otherwise perfectly banal conversation to ask me in an accusing voice, "You're not one of those feminists, are you?" Confused and alarmed by her obvious disapproval and unexpected insight, I could only stammer jokingly that I thought everyone was, to which she gravely informed me that no, she certainly was not. Only rarely did she speak to me again after that.

I live in a community where I have been shamed and scolded -- from both sides of the issue -- over the decision of whether to change my name when I married. Before I made my decision, several people in my private circle felt it was appropriate to vocally question whether or not I could really love my husband if I didn't take his name and how he could ever really trust me if I didn't. After I made my decision, I experienced more than one shaming session where men at work literally yelled at me for changing my name and making it more difficult to find me in the company email directory.

I live in a community where many of my male coworkers can go their entire work day without meaningfully interacting with a woman, and where I am regularly treated as an object of strangeness and mystery, available to shed light on the strange vagaries of woman-kind. What do I think about this whole birth control thing? Can I explain why abortion really needs to be legal when there's always adoption? Do I as a woman vote for Sarah Palin, who is a Woman Just Like Me, or do I vote for that Democrat party that supposedly all the women go for these days? (You know, the one with the black senator that everyone is always talking about in the news. Did I know that he's the abortioniest senator in the senate? Fox News said so.)

I live in a community where I have on more than one occasion been forced to haul out the words "because my husband doesn't like me to" in order to get out of situations where I was being bullied and pressured into doing things that I didn't feel comfortable doing. After saying firmly and repeatedly that I didn't want to do these things, that I wouldn't do these things, and that I didn't feel comfortable being repeatedly asked to do these things -- all to no avail -- I dragged out the magic words that I hate-hate-hate to use. "My husband doesn't like me to" is the mantra that evaporates every objection in my community; a protective cloak that I resent being forced to wear by a community that considers my own consent to be meaningless even as it values my husband's consent not for who he is but for what he represents. (And, for the record, my husband respects my consent even when our community does not. I have his consent to use him as an excuse when I am forced to navigate these social hurdles.)

And because I am a feminist and because I care about the social messages involved in this daily navigation and specifically because I have entrenched issues with being Hard On Myself, I frequently feel guilty for making the compromises I have to in order to navigate safely through a conservative patriarchal environment. And I feel cowardly for not being more vocal, more obvious, more "out" -- and professional and personal consequences be damned.

But then I remember how much I need my job and my health care just to survive and how strongly I require a robust social network in order to live with my disability, and I remember all over again all the reasons why I don't say the F-word, why I don't openly and vocally identify as a feminist in facespace: I can't afford to. It's too risky. It's too dangerous. And so I creep back undercover and long for the day when my online activism can meet my facespace movements without fear of reprisals.

I'm a feminist because, as Amadi wonderfully defines it, I conduct cultural critique and policy analysis while still understanding that my individual choices are choices that are made under a tremendous amount of social coercion. And I recognize that even though those patterns of coercion may not seem obvious to everyone, they nonetheless exist.

I would never call someone who felt forced to conceal a part of their identity for reasons of safety and survival a coward. I realize now that I need to stop internally calling myself that for my choice to conceal my social and political leanings from the people in my facespace in order to protect myself.

The fact that I don't feel safe saying the F-word doesn't make me a C-word. Coward, that is.

Open Wide...

On Naming, Identity, and Choice

Yesterday, Jill Filipovic wrote a piece for the Guardian about male-partnered women changing their names upon marriage. The subtitle of the piece is: "Your name is your identity. The reasons women give for changing their names after marrying don't make much sense." and she says in the piece that she "fundamentally...oppose[s] changing your name."

A familiar debate about name-changing and individual choice ensued on Twitter (and elsewhere), which highlighted many of the issues that are casually elided with this position, including cultural differences in naming traditions, disparities in the authenticity of externally perceived choice (i.e. different pressures on individual women in separate spaces), and, if Filipovic is right that "Your name is your identity," are we not keen to support women in decisions about self-defined identity.

I have made my position on name-changing abundantly clear, and, while I absolutely believe it is important to do awareness-raising around the option to keep one's name, I also believe it is possible to have those conversations without judging women for whatever choices they ultimate make.

Central to feminism is the idea that women are not a monolith, and recognizing that individual women have individual reasons for their individual choices is a crucial act in demonolithizing women.

(As an aside, I have also found that many of the reasons deemed insufficiently reasonable, e.g. "I wanted my whole family to have the same last name," frequently are simplistic expressions of a more complex motivation. Sometimes they are not, but sometimes they are an easy and less vulnerable way to communicate something about insecurity or belonging or symbolically establishing new family patterns after a lifetime of dysfunction.)

Anyway. I noticed a couple of things about the public discussion of the piece and its assertions that I want to mention.

1. This conversation tends to treat changing one's name as a zero-sum game.

You either change your name, or you don't. But as I have previously mentioned, I effectively have two names: My professional, public name is my first name + Iain's last name. I also maintain private accounts and a personal online presence to keep in touch with friends and distant family under my first name + my father's last name, i.e. my "birth name." I am known by both my birth name and my married name. I am not just Melissa Lastname or Melissa McEwan. Even Iain will casually refer to me as Lastname. As in, "Give me a break, Lastname," when I asked him to get the mail at midnight the other night, heh.

Some friends call me Melissa. Some call me Liss. Some call me various other nicknames. I am introduced as Melissa Lastname or as Melissa McEwan, depending on who's doing the introduction, and however I'm introduced is fine with me.

It's really helpful for me to have two names. I can't have a private online anything anymore under the name Melissa McEwan, but I can under my birth name—which is useful for both practical reasons and psychological reasons, as "Melissa McEwan" gets to feel like a brand sometimes, or the person strangers define to to be, rather than who I actually am.

(There's that whole identity thing again.)

It's eminently possible to straddle multiple identities, and I don't think I'm the only one who does.

2. Women who have changed their names, and defend themselves against sweeping judgment for their choice, are accused of being defensive and emotional.

First I want to say this: My position would be the same whether I changed my name or whether I didn't. I can't make anyone believe that, if they're not inclined to do so, but there it is. And I take no shame in defending and being emotional about (these are bad things now?) challenging the policing of women's choices. I am defensive and emotional on behalf of women who do not change their names. I am defensive and emotional on behalf of women who do change their names. Because I don't care what choice you make: I care that you do, or don't, have a choice.

Secondly, I want to state plainly that I am indeed defensive and emotional about my own name change, too—because I was forced to be by my government, who made me "prove" that my relationship was real in order to keep it. The default position of immigration services is essentially: "We don't believe your relationship is real and we do believe you are trying to scam us; prove us wrong." (And "proof" of commitment is subjectively assessed by individual agents with individual biases that may dispose them toward suspicion or outright hostility for name-changing.) Being challenged to defend and be demonstrably emotional about your relationship is the sort of thing that makes a lady defensive and emotional, and I don't have any shame about that, either.

3. Everyone is an exception.

I am one of hundreds of thousands of USians who have gone through this immigration process, each of which involves a different-sex couple (because the same right is not yet extended to same-sex couples) and thus a woman faced with the decision of a name-change that is not just about her preference, but is about convincing a deeply patriarchal institution that her relationship is legitimate.

And yet, I am still regarded, even by those who would begrudgingly concede the pressing parameters of my individual circumstance, as an exception. Okay, your choice, sure, I get it, but about all those other women... But I am one of a multitude of women in the same circumstance, some of whom will roll the dice without a name change, and some of whom won't.

And then someone will pipe up about this circumstance, or that one, or this other one, things like, say, how their professional life in a conservative place could be compromised by openly identifying as feminist by doing something like not changing one's name, and each woman with Her Reason is treated like an exception to some larger group of monolithized women who definitely don't have any good reasons for changing their names, rather than collectively being regarded as evidence that maybe this shit is more complex than Doing It Right or Doing It Wrong.

If only there were an existent framework which competently and confidently makes the argument that women should be trusted to make the best decisions for themselves!

*thatface*

* * *

I don't have any brilliant fucking conclusion to tie it all into a bow, so I'll just say this again: I love women. I respect women. I trust women. Not as part of some abstract, theoretical feminism but as part of an applied, practical feminism that urges me to love by nonjudgment, respect by listening, trust by supporting individual choices.

Open Wide...

Reproductive Rights Updates: Oklahoma, Michigan, Maryland, National

It's a mixed bag of news around the country--but at least there is some good news.

In Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has struck down draconian and useless anti-choice legislation:

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma laws requiring women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound image placed in front of them while they hear a description of the fetus and that ban off-label use of certain abortion-inducing drugs are unconstitutional, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The state's highest court determined that lower court judges were right to halt the laws. In separate decisions, the Oklahoma Supreme Court said the laws, which received wide bipartisan support in the Legislature, violated a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case.

[...]

Tony Lauinger, chairman of the anti-abortion group Oklahomans for Life, said he believes the state Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision. He said the Oklahoma ultrasound measure provides a level of informed consent for women seeking abortions, something he said the federal decision permits.
Yes, please do go on Mr. Lauinger about how a near unanimous (one judge had to recuse herself) decision from your state supreme court justices is because they don't know what they're doing interpreting law.

Oklahoma already has legislation that is in effect that requires a person to receive state-mandated "counseling" generally designed to discourage abortion (and then have a 24 hour waiting period). Obviously that's not enough "informed consent" for the likes of Mr. Lauinger. It's also not enough for State Attorney General Scott Pruitt who is considering appealing to the Supreme Court (of the US).

---

In Michigan, legislators are using their end-of-session time to try and compete with the likes of Kansas and South Dakota in being hostile to autonomy:
The state Senate passed three bills on Thursday that would ban abortion coverage in state-based health insurance exchanges and all private insurance plans, and another bill that would allow employers and medical professionals to refuse to cover or provide health treatment to which they morally object. State lawmakers are also expected to pass a so-called omnibus bill on Thursday that would impose prohibitive building regulations on abortion clinics and ban the use of telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication.
That last bit of legislation, 5711, the one regarding the TRAP laws--I wrote about that in July. The bill was rushed though the senate committee with little public notice. It isn't just regulating floor space or supply closet size, it dictates:
Sec. 2836. (1) ALL fetal remains resulting from abortions shall be disposed of by means lawful for other dead bodies, including burial, cremation, or interment. Unless the mother has provided written consent for research on the fetal remains under section 2688, a physician who performs an abortion shall arrange for the final disposition of the fetal remains resulting from the abortion. If the fetal remains resulting from an abortion are disposed of by cremation, the fetal remains shall be incinerated separately from any other medical waste. However, this subsection does not prohibit the simultaneous cremation of fetal remains with products of conception or other fetal remains resulting from abortions.

(2) This section does not require a physician to discuss the final disposition of the fetal remains with the mother before performing the abortion, nor does it require a physician to obtain authorization from the mother for the final disposition of the fetal remains upon completion of the abortion.
This applies for less than 20 weeks gestation. It does not apply if a miscarriage occurs at home. As I said in July: All "fetal remains" are equal but some are more equal than others.

Open Wide...

Good Morning! (Or Whatever.)

Here is a nice article about three people who are fighting hunger in the US. What I like about these stories, apart from the fact that they are generally uplifting and faith-restorative, is that the people featured have a deep respect for the agency and dignity of the people they're helping.

One of the best ways to empower people is to empower them. That sounds like the most obvious statement in the world, but a lot of charitable organizations have not historically been particularly interested in providing decision-making opportunities to the people they're helping.

There has been a whole lot of trying to be a savior rather than being a partner, a whole lot of behavior policing rather than listening.

That habit of many traditional charities, by the way, is a big part of why conservatives assert that a robust social safety net will "entrench dependence," or some variation thereof—because that's what old-school moralizing charities do, when they fail to empower people with choice. And when our state welfare programs get cluttered with work requirements and dictate how money can be spent, we get similar results.

Most people, given the opportunity to make decisions for themselves, will make the best decisions for themselves.

Open Wide...