Paradigm Shift

On a dark, winter day in January 2010, I got off the subway in Queens, New York.  I was alone, hopelessly lost, trying to find Choices Medical Center.  I saw a woman working in the station, gave her the address, and asked for directions.  She looked up at me and whispered, “Are you looking for Choices?”  That is where I was going, but I did not know whether or not to tell her.  Would she harass me because I was going to a clinic that performs abortions or would she simply give me the directions I needed?  I decided to answer truthfully, hoping for the best.  She gave me the directions without any problems, but once outside, I could not figure out where to turn.  None of the buildings were labeled and I was reluctant to ask another stranger.  Luckily, I found a friend who was also part of Feminist Winter Term, a weeklong workshop put on by Soapbox Inc. where young feminists meet in New York City to learn about feminist issues and activism.  When we finally found the clinic, we were greeted at the door by Sister Dorothy.  Each day, she stands outside the clinic and talks to each person that enters.  She gave us pamphlets and told us that we had other options, but overall she seemed harmless.  Later on that night, I opened up my folder to look over the material I had been given that day.  A piece of paper fell onto my lap; on it, were images of dead babies covered in blood and messages that hoped to turn women away from abortion.  I was horrified and disgusted.  I thought to myself, no woman should ever have to experience this type of harassment and judgement.  I guess you could call this my pro-choice click…

Before this, I had never been particularly interested in reproductive rights.  Growing up, I was always taught from the pro-life perspective.  It wasn’t until I went to college that I really started learning about reproductive rights.  I had long identified as a feminist, but had always focused on other issues.  I distinctly remember a conversation with a friend when she asked me what I thought about abortion.  I responded, without hesitation, that I was pro-life; my answer had obviously taken her by surprise.  When she asked me why I was pro-life, I did not really have an answer.  I knew nothing about legislation, activism, or real life experiences.  After that, I started learning new perspectives and challenging what I had previously known.  Now, when I’m asked the same question, I answer very differently.

– I am pro-choice because every one has the right to make the best decisions about their own health and well-being.

– Because no one should ever have to be lost, alone, and confused when trying to obtain medical care.

– Because no one should ever be harassed, stalked, threatened, or assaulted while obtaining and/or providing medical care.

– Because thousands of women around the world have died from unsafe, illegal abortions.  Because I want to live to see a day where all women have access to safe, legal abortion services, regardless of their socioeconomic status, geographic location, and age.

– Because every one deserves unbiased, medically accurate information about health and sexuality.

– Because the decision if and when to start a family should be a right, not a privilege.

– Because every one has the right to become a parent, if and when they choose.  For those that choose not to, they need to be able to access affordable birth control, emergency contraception, and abortion services.  For those that cannot have children naturally, they need to have access to in vetro fertilization services and quality adoption agencies.

– Because every woman has the right to a healthy pregnancy.  This includes prenatal care, information about pregnancy, and options about childbirth.

I could go on, but I’m more interested in what you have to say.  Are you pro-choice?  If so, please share why!

I just saw this commercial and had to share it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrJrw5ZZfRU

This campaign, Think Before You Speak, is working to raise awareness about harassment and discrimination against LGBTQ teenagers.  Here is how they describe their work:

“Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) teens experience homophobic remarks and harassment throughout the school day, creating an atmosphere where they feel disrespected, unwanted and unsafe. Homophobic remarks such as “that’s so gay” are the most commonly heard; these slurs are often unintentional and a common part of teens’ vernacular. Most do not recognize the consequences, but the casual use of this language often carries over into more overt harassment.  This campaign aims to raise awareness about the prevalence and consequences of anti-LGBT bias and behavior in America’s schools. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce and prevent the use of homophobic language in an effort to create a more positive environment for LGBT teens. The campaign also aims to reach adults, including school personnel and parents; their support of this message is crucial to the success of efforts to change behavior.”

Learn more about the campaign here.

I just finished reading a piece on RH Reality Check about a feminist women’s health center in Yakima, Washington, a small town known for it’s agriculture and sunshine.  Since opening in 1979, the clinic offered gynecological exams, first and second trimester abortions, a broad range of contraceptives, etc.  The clinic served as the only facility in the area that provided second-term abortions for nearly thirty years, until 2005 when Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho decided to  offer the procedure at it’s new, more-comprehensive clinic in Yakima.  Due to the economic recession, increasing competition for funding, and the expansion of services at the local Planned Parenthood clinic, the Cedar River Clinic in Yakima shut down.  Even though the clinic has closed, the organization has plans to remain active in the community.  They will continue hosting events and still be available to answer health questions over the phone.

Here is what the Feminist Abortion Network has to say about this situation:

‘The Yakima clinic closing is a wake-up call to all who support access to choice and access to health care. Feminist Abortion Network believes in the value of locally-based locally-responsive clinics, and in the strength of diversity in the health care ecosystem. Now is a critically important time to support your local independent feminist clinic. We urge you to go to the FAN website, find the feminist clinic nearest you, and send them a check for your support. You can count on FAN members to provide personal supportive care to women and families.'” – Anita Keunneun, President of the Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana

This past summer, I interned at the Feminist Women’s Health Center in Atlanta, one of the fourteen remaining feminist health centers in the United States.  The time that I spent there taught me so much, but most importantly, I saw how much hard work and dedication goes into the organization.  Feminist health centers are non-profit organizations dedicated to provide quality sexual and reproductive healthcare to women of all backgrounds.  The centers offer services ranging from contraceptions to pap smears, in vetro fertilization to second trimester abortions.

At feminist health centers, the experience is truly about quality.  The organizations are based on feminist principles, meaning that they see and treat all clients equally, regardless of sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, etc.    Appointments are tailored to the individual needs of patients and prices are determined based on a sliding-scale.  Most importantly, the centers help women work around barriers to access.

From my experience, feminist health centers have numerous programs, initiatives, and services which allow it to serve the needs of diverse populations in the community.  They recognize that all women have different needs and work to ensure their safety, satisfaction, and comfort.  For example, several of the clinics offer “health services sensitive to the needs of lesbian, bisexual and queer women.”  Many times, LBQ women face additional barriers when going in for gynecological services, including verbal harassment, “denial of care, and undue roughness in the physical exam.”

Feminist health centers are a wonderful resource for the community and their work is irreplaceable.  It is crucial that we continue offering our support to these organizations, whether by volunteering our time, donating money, or raising awareness about their work.

**In this blog, I use often use the terms “East” and “West” to refer to different geographic locations and groups of people.  Personally, I do not think this language is appropriate because it creates a binary and leads readers to make assumptions about the individuals in this group.  However, I chose to use this phrase because it was used by Hirsi Ali in the article to which I am responding.**

I often find myself sifting through the topics page of The New York Times online, looking for subjects which relate in someway or another to feminism; today, I clicked the link “women and girls.”  My eyes skimmed over the page and I immediately stopped at the second article, “Not the Child by Grandmother Wanted.” My interest was peaked, so I read the brief description: “What Western feminism can offer the child brides, battered wives and subjugated women of Asia and Africa.”  I could not help but think about Western imperialism, feminist exceptionalism, and the pervasive image of the West as the savior of women in the East.  Before I thought to check the author’s name, my mind started to wander.  Who would write this article?  Would they be a Western feminist or someone with a different background?  Regardless of all my questions, I knew one thing for sure.  I was already finding the piece problematic and had not even read the first sentence.

Perhaps I had simply overreacted to the description.  In hopes of proving myself wrong, I clicked on the link and read the article.  As soon as I realized that the piece was written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I knew my initial reactions were not wrong.  Hirsi Ali is a very controversial figure around the world for the books which she has published, her film Submission, and her public remarks against Islam.  She believes that Muslim women are oppressed and the source of these inequalities can be found in Islamic texts, specifically the Qu’Ran.  She also argues against multiculturalism and believes that the values of Western feminism need to be adopted globally.

Hirsi Ali begins the article with a story from her childhood.  When she was about six or seven years old, she had a conversation with her grandmother in which her grandmother equated a woman’s worth with “a piece of sheep fat in the sun.”  Her grandmother was constantly reminding her how she needed to behave in order to avoid being perceived as disobedient.  When Hirsi Ali asked why her brother did not have to act in the same way, her grandmother explained that her “misfortune is that [she was] born with a split between [her] legs.”

She goes on to tell the story of Nujood, a child bride from Yemen.  At eight years old, her father accepted a dowry of $750; in exchange, a delivery man received Nujood as his wife.  Nujood’s mother and sisters protested, but her father explained that this arrangement was completely normal.  Her husband physically and sexually abused her for nearly two years.  She borrowed money from her abut to pay for the bus fare to the courthouse, where she asked the judge for a divorce from her husband.  Her story made international headlines and “opened the doors” for changes in legislation and attitudes towards consent, sexuality, and marriage.

Hirsi Ali then offers a summary of Elizabeth Gilbert’s novel, Eat Pray Love.  She sees this story as an example of “what feminism has accomplished in the West.”  She says:

“I often am asked by my Western audiences: “Where did feminism go wrong?” I think the answer is staring us in the face. Western feminism hasn’t gone wrong at all — it has accomplished its mission so completely that a woman like Elizabeth Gilbert can marry freely and then leave her husband equally freely, purely in order to pursue her own culinary and religious inclinations. The victory of feminism allows women like Gilbert to shape their own destinies.”

First, Western feminism has yet to accomplish “its mission so completely.”  Western society is still deeply embedded in it’s racist, patriarchal, and classist roots.  Also, there is no denying that Western feminism has had its ups and downs.  For example, the first wave of feminism centered itself around suffrage.  However, the right to vote was not to be given to all women; rather, this fight was for the political advancement of white women.  Since then, the feminist movement has transformed and made great strides towards equality, but there is still plenty of work to be done.  Gilbert’s “freedom” to marry, divorce, and travel is not representative of the majority of Western women; her ability to do all of these things comes from a position of class privilege.  Although women in the West are legally guaranteed the right to marry, divorce, travel, etc., it does not mean that their social situation allows them to do so.  Many other factors come into consideration, including socioeconomic status, geographic location, family, religion, etc.  To assume that all Western women are so fortunate is ignorant, at best.

Later, Hirsi Ali talks about Western “solipsism.”  Referring to Western women, she says, “They are too busy hunting for the perfect prayer mat or pasta to give two hoots about a case of child-rape in Yemen.”  I find this statement incredibly offensive.  Although this statement may be true of part of the population, it is surely not representative of the entire Western population.  Also, I would argue that education about global politics and world affairs comes with privilege, which comes from access to alternative media sources, academic institutions, etc.  Unfortunately, topics such as rape in Yemen, or rape in any country, are not addressed by most mainstream news sources or academic courses.  I agree with Hirsi Ali that this lack of knowledge and awareness is a serious problem, but I cannot see the benefit of making such statements; instead, we should focus our efforts on education and raising awareness.

Also, the problems taking place in the East are not confined to the borders of any specific country.  “Child-rape” is happening all around the world, including Western countries.  There are countless individuals and organizations that advocate for women’s rights globally, raise awareness about gender inequality, and work to improve the lives of women everywhere.  Hirsi Ali’s description of Westerners is nothing more than a trivializing generalization.

For a brief moment in the article, I feel a shred of hope.  Hirsi Ali states that the West invading the East in order to emancipate the women is not “realistic or desirable.”  For once, I agree with something she says.  However, she immediately loses any brownie points she had won by making this argument as her closing statement: “For the dream of liberation to come true for women in the East it is imperative that we seek to shatter the underpinnings of their subjugation, which are now enshrined in religion and custom.”  Here, she implies that all women in the East long for “liberation.”  As the article suggests, Hirsi Ali’s definition of liberation would need to follow the model of Western feminism in order to successfully “dismantle the cages” of women’s oppression in the East.  Another problem here is that she points the blame to religion and custom, yet offers no justification for such a serious remark.  She believes that “militant Islam” is the root of the problem and the West needs to “confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.”  One suggestion she offers for this is abolishing all Muslim schools in the West.  Hirsi Ali is really missing the point.  Islam is not synonymous with women’s oppression; this oppression comes from patriarchy and a misinterpretation of religious texts.  There is no one way to read the Qu’Ran.  Today, there are many interpretations available which offer unique perspectives on how the text can be applied today.  For example, Amina Wadud wrote her interpretation in a book called, Qur’an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective, which clarifies… the lack of gender bias, precedence, or prejudice in the essential language of the Qur’an.”

Hirsi Ali’s sweeping generalizations and misinterpretations about culture, in the East and West, reinforce dominant attitudes which support imperialism and Western superiority.  She opposes “radicalism”, yet attacks Islam with such extreme hatred that her own behavior can be seen as fundamentalist.  Overall, I found Hirsi Ali’s piece offensive and culturally-insensitive.  I recognize the need for productive dialogue, but feel that this cannot happen until we chain the dominant framework with which we discuss issues of feminism, multiculturalism, and religions.  Making assumptions and generalizations about such a diverse group of people will not help anyone.   Rather than pointing blame or adopting positions in a hierarchy, we need to create space for women to share their experiences and voice their concerns.  Many critics of Islam argue that Muslim women are being silenced and oppressed, so why don’t we stop and listen to what the women have to say?

On Monday night, I attended a screening of Abortion Democracy at Emory University followed by a discussion led by the film’s director, Sarah Diehl.  Diehl is a German feminist filmmaker, writer, and reproductive justice activist.  For this film, she travelled to Poland and South Africa to research the relationship between the legal status of abortion and the lived experiences of women in those countries.  She chose these countries for her research because they both reformed abortion during the 1990’s as part of their transition to democracy.

During apartheid in South Africa, abortion was legal only to save the life of the mother.  When the African National Congress took over the government in 1994, they began working to reform abortion law.  Three years later, South Africa legalized abortion.  First trimester abortions became available “on demand” and in cases of rape, health risks, or for “socioeconomic reasons” during the second trimester.  South Africa also allows trained nurses and midwives to perform abortions, whereas most countries require a doctor to perform the procedure.  Today, even with abortion being legal, there are countless barriers to access in South Africa.  Doctors and patients alike are fearful of openly discussing abortion.  Women’s sexuality is stigmatized and abortion is judged negatively, even by professionals in the medical community.  This judgment also causes doctors to worry about their reputation, which may be enough to discourage them from performing abortions.  Also, the medical facilities which are able to perform abortions are found mostly in urban areas; for rural women, this means a huge added expense: travel.  Of these facilities, forty percent are not in operations.  This means that the remaining sixty percent of facilities are overcrowded and unable to meet the needs of all the patients.  This is, in part, due to a lack of funding.  During Bush’s eight-year regime, many clinics lost funding due to the implementation of the Global Gag Rule.  Lastly, there is a great reluctance to accepting the new abortion law because it is seen as a Western import.

During the same time period, Poland was also making changes to legislation relating to abortion.  After the fall of communism in 1989, Poland started transitioning towards democracy: the government was reformed, new laws were passed, and traditions were changed.  During this period, the Polish government began building a strong relationship with the Catholic Church.  The Church became increasingly influential and used this newfound power to encourage Poland to reform it’s law on abortion.  The government put this off for four years, but finally responded to the pressures in 1993, when the Family Planning, Protection of Human Fetus and Conditions for Termination of Pregnancy Act was passed.  This law states that a woman may only have an abortion if the pregnancy poses a threat to her health, if the life of the fetus is in danger, or if she became pregnant as a result of rape.  The law also criminalizes all individuals that help Polish women obtain legal abortions, including the doctors that offer the service.  Lawmakers hoped that this law would discourage women from having abortions; instead, it forced women to seek illegal abortions.  Today, there are approximately 150 legal abortions performed each year in Poland.  Meanwhile, the “abortion underground” is said to have anywhere between 80,000 and 200,000 clients each year.  The abortion underground is made up of doctors that are willing to perform illegal abortions.  Although this has been helpful for many women, there are many problems associated with this network.  The abortion underground can be very risky and dangerous.  Women can never be guaranteed that the doctor knows how to perform a surgical abortion, or whether or not the pills they are being given actually work to induce abortion.  Also, because doctors know that access to abortion is so restricted, they are able to charge as much as they want for the procedure.  One woman in the film says she was asked to pay 5,000 Polish zloty, the equivalent of 1,614 U.S. dollars, for an illegal abortion.  This is an extremely large sum of money and unaffordable for the majority of women.  Here, we see the biggest barrier to abortion access: class.  As Diehl said, wealthy women will always have access to abortion, regardless of whether or not the procedure is approved by law.

The film ultimately concludes that barriers to abortion access exist in all countries, regardless of the legislation.  When restrictive laws are passed, those that are disproportionately affected are women with lower socioeconomic statuses who cannot afford the procedure, legally or illegally.  This leads women into situations which can be dangerous and potentially life-threatening.  For example, the film talks about a Polish woman named Alicja Tysiac.  She became pregnant with her third child in 2000 and was refused an abortion by numerous Polish gynecologists, even though they recognized the risk that she could lose her eyesight if she had the child.  Shortly after giving birth, Tysiac “suffered retinal hemorrhage, which left her unable to see objects more than five feet away without the assistance of special glasses.”  Her situation is becoming progressively worse and she is likely to lose all of her eyesight.  This could have been prevented if Polish doctors had given her the abortion she needed, but because of the restrictive law and “systematic hypocrisy” relating to abortion, she was forced to have the child.

Overall, I feel that the film did an incredible job highlighting how women’s reproductive rights are violated and neglected.  Although the film focused on South Africa and Poland, the message can be applied to countries all over the world.  It is crucial that we raise awareness about barriers to abortion access and help women work around them to ensure their safety, health, and well-being.