war on women... a personal pontification

The news (by which I mean Facebook), has had abundant posts about the current "war on women" from the GOP. Actually I don't care which political end of the table you sit at, what I do care about-- quite deeply when the guns are actually pointed-- is women's rights and elements of the language that is used when talking about  women's rights.

Wow, sounds so archaic, doesn't it? Next thing you know and the label femi-nazi will return, along with all of the slurs and derogatory words used to project an idea of what a "woman" is and what our "rights" should be, as if we are separate and not equal.

Let's start with Limbaugh, since he made the most noise most recently. Calling a college student a "slut" in answer to her bold testimony about the use of prescription contraceptives for reasons other than strictly birth control (I went on the pill as one of the last resort efforts to clear my skin after years of terrible acne, before finally being blessed to find a doctor -- Dr. Stephen Comite, in NYC-- who helped me obtain Accutane.) is pretty bad. I was glad he was called out on it. But his calling the woman a "slut" didn't bother me half as much as his awful apology which was far from apologetic.

You see, any woman worth her salt-- any teacher, too-- can read through an insincere apology as easily as a bald-faced lie. "Johnny, did you punch your sister?" "Wasn't me!" "Don't lie to me. Go to your room!" is as easy for us as "Johnny, you apologize to your sister for punching her." "Fine. Sis, I used the wrong punch when I swung my fist at you, I didn't intend to hit you personally."

Right?  His apology gave more validity to his initial statement. Rather than appearing  truly regretful, his apology clarified it as a belief he holds.

What about the rest of this war on women?
My friend Carolyn Castiglia provided a nice little turn of the table in this blog she posted today: http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2012/03/05/win-female-senator-in-ohio-introduces-bill-to-help-men-make-informed-reproductive-decisions/

I am particularly fond of the use of these words: “provisions to document that the symptoms are not psychological in nature, and would guide men to make the right decision for their bodies." This language mimics the language used in similar bills about women's health, and I'll admit that I get a squeamy feeling when reading it.  It makes me feel like a "sensitive" man is trying to compensate for the fact that he ogles naked women in Penthouse magazine (or whatever is out there, I'm way behind the times. For all I know Penthouse went out of business. haha... nah.)

When it comes down to it, at absolute core, it is a belief that women-- for all of our quirks and hormonal shifts and the fact that we deal with all of that and men don't-- are still in need of protection from themselves. They need men... and legislation... to tell them what's what.

I understand that there are women out there who probably see Limbaugh's point, which I believe was about first amendment freedom or something. Easy to forget when he smothered it under the "women will have more sex on birth control and become sluts" mask. Speaking of-- yes, some women will indeed seek out more sex even if they are on birth control for mundane reasons (like acne control). To counter Limbaugh, I recall Dr. Oz recommending sex four times a week for better health. Huh. How about that.

And we women, I think, also realize that the abortion issue rubs right up against women's rights issues-- because it is, after all, OUR perogative about when to have children and when not. Except that... often, it's not. Culture, personal habits, health, drugs & alcohol, men with controlling and dominance issues, societies that don't give those rights to women, and competition between women themselves-- all of these things interfere with a woman's clear decision whether or not to have sex as a means of procreation. Lack of education and lack of access to birth control also limits women's freedom and their ability to choose.

So when the question of abortion comes charging through our government-- and those who want to maintain its legal status argue with those who wish to take away access to it, they argue as though it is a separate issue from women's health, as though women's health is a separate issue from women's rights. The fact is-- these things are closely entwined. Calling one woman a "slut" for speaking publicly on behalf of other women's health issues and telling another woman she has to have a transvaginal ultrasound as means of determining whether or not she still wants an abortion... that's exactly the same as telling a woman she does not have the right to make decisions-- for her body, for her country or for her family. Language that demeans and diminishes women's rights can be hidden in legislation designed for "the sanctity of all life".

My hope is that women continue to hold men's feet to the fire when they let loose a bit of truly raucous legislation-- or radio pontification-- and that we stand up for ourselves and our rights, always.
The war is, indeed, still on.

Caveat:
Having said all of this, the fact is--  I work with male musicians. I have worked in the restaurant business. My skin is tough and I have a Mae West sense of humor and sense of self as a woman. Hell, I have a show called sultry cabaret jazz and blues. You can pretty much guarantee that I'm not up there wearing a nun's outfit. So with all of the above, my caveat for this blog is context driven. Limbaugh holds a special place for his influence on his listeners. Legal legislation with language that effectively removes the woman herself from private choices she has to make-- also very important to consider. My band making a joke about "that's what she said..." eh, I'm bound to join in.

Yours,
Melissa