Toronto's G8/G20 and women's health

I just spoke at a forum tonight on the G8/G20, and I thought I would try to recreate some of what I said because I think it is important. I spoke on women's health, and more specifically, abortion. Keep in mind that this is one small piece of the summit, and there were other presenters who gave much needed information on topics like the environment, indigenous relations and global capitalism in the context of the Steelworkers strike.

I started by discussing my experiences of reading about abortions on American bloggers websites. For example, Feministe, Jezebel and Feministing have discussed the Stupak amendment at length on many occasions, which makes abortion even less accessible to poor women by restricting the use of federal funds to pay for abortions. Recently, Louisianna passed laws requiring women to get ultrasounds before abortions. Nebraska has imposed confusing laws regarding women's mental health in relation to abortions, and Utah has essentially criminalized miscarriages. Reading this over the past few years, I have often found myself greatful to live in a place where abortions are free and largely unrestricted (although not always accessible).

When Harper announced that maternal and children's health would be a major issue at the summit, I was rather pleased... and surprised. Harper is not exactly known for his women friendly policies... actually, he thinks that we have already attained gender equality! Globally and historically, women and children have not had much acess to funding for their specific health care needs, as they have taken a back seat to issues that directly affect men's health.

Then, Harper announced that this initiative would not cover abortions (my reaction to this announcement here). He explained

"We want to make sure our funds are used to save the lives of women and children"

I always thought that this was part of the purpose of abortions, but I guess the life of the fetus is being prioritized over the health of the mother. The fact is that women and girls often die when they do not have access to safe abortions.

As a sidenote, the USA does plan to include abortions in their contribution for maternal and children's health, even though they have some very restrictive laws domestically.

Women's groups began to speak out about abortions right away, and within 2 days 11 groups lost funding. Within a month, 24 women's groups lost federal funding. These cuts undermine women's equality and democracy within Canada.

Nancy Ruth, a "feminist" Conservative Senator spoke out on this issue (previously posted here), saying that women need to

"shut the fuck up on this issue... Canada is still a country with free and accessible abortion. Leave it there. Dont' make it into an election issue"

So, we are to allow white male politicians to decide what counts as maternal health (See this post), even in countries they may never have visited. Colonialism is rampant within Harper's maternal health initiative.

And, for the bigger picture. We have to fight for our right to choose, and for women everywhere to have this right. But we have to make sure that this isnt' being used as a distraction. Saving abortions might distract us from fighting for more accessible abortions for women in rural areas. This issue, as important as it is in its own right, cannot distract us from the cuts to women's programs and social spending, lenient corporate regulations that lead to tax loopholes and lacking health and safety regulation, Israeli's occupation of Palestine, aboriginal treaty rights, or any other systemic inequality.

The moral right and neoliberal movements have political power in Canada. They also have corporate sponsorship and financial backing. The left typically does not have this type of money or power. What we have is our voice, and that is why we are being told to shut the fuck up. Because when we do come together and speak, we threaten the status quo.

As those of you who know me are well aware, I will not shut the fuck up.

Will you?

Gendered wage gap in the media

Canadian newspapers have been taking an anti-feminist perspective regarding women and paid work. There was a recent study done by The Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action and the Canadian Labor Congress. I should start by saying that I have not yet had the opportunity to read through this 40 page report (I know, bad blogger... but I have a big test tomorrow and I am quite behind on my thesis, so I will have to finish reading it later).

Anyway, the report states that Canadian women earn 70 cents on a man's dollar. Canadian newspapers are accusing them of using incorrect data, claiming that the actual number was 84 cents on the dollar, hour per hour, because of women choosing part-time work. Women typically work fewer hours per week than men, and at different types of work. But this article blames women for making bad choices.

Women often work part-time for long periods of time, especially when they have young children, whereas men generally only work part-time as students under the age of 25. Women are believed to be naturally suited to childcare and household responsibilities, and by working part-time they can contribute to the household income while maintaining a close attachment to the home.

Another important aspect of part-time work is the discourse of chosen part-time work. Often, when a woman, especially a mother, chooses part-time over full-time work it is not because she would prefer to work fewer hours or because she does not need the additional pay that comes with full-time employment, but there are structural factors that make fewer hours the more practical choice for them at that time. For example, if a mother takes part-time work because she cannot access quality daycare services in her area, she may not have actually chosen part-time work; it was an external influence that shaped her decision. I think it is also important to note that rarely do such structural forces surrounding family life dictate whether a man/father works full-time, as it is women who are socialized to plan their lives around a family, while men are encouraged to plan their lives around a career.

Even when women work full-time, they are often not able to take on certain careers because of long hours, shift work, or a need to take time off when children are sick. It is generally not the father that stays home from work with a sick child- it is the mother. Of course, the article doesn't state any of the factors that might influence a woman's "choice" to do certain types of work. I have a possible career opportunity right now that would pay quite well, but requires a lot of traveling. If I were not the primary caretaker of two young children, I would apply for the job, and I believe I have a good chance at getting it. Because I cannot expect to find people to take care of them 4 to 10 days a month, I am instead going to graduate school in the hopes that I can find an equally good job that does not require traveling.

The article also talks about how women, who work proportionately more in the public sector, would then qualify for better pensions and maternity benefits than jobs which men predominate. If women have such great pensions, why is it that the poorest group, other than families headed by a single woman, is elderly widowed women? And parental leave can only be obtained if one has worked 900 hours in the previous year, which would be about 18 hours a week if I'm not mistaken, so, many part-timers wouldn't even qualify. And when they do qualify, it is based on a proportion of how much you made while working. This is usually 55%, but the article says many women get up to 93% of their income during maternity leave. This is misleading as 93% is the highest negotiated maternity leave by any public sector employer; it is not the norm.

The article ends by saying that we need to start by looking at the real numbers. I suggest they do the same.

blame feminism...

I have been trying to avoid talking about the Tiger Woods scandal since it first happened, mostly because I do not believe that somebody's extramarital affairs should take precedence over more important news issues on the local television news as the lead story EVERY night for more than a week, but I saw a paper on his apology that presents a position which I feel needs to be addressed.

Dr. Wendy Walsh, a clinical psychologist, blames women for Tiger's infidelity. She actually writes "How can we blame our husbands for getting wet on their way home from work when IT'S RAINING WHORES?" I detest these essentialist arguments that men somehow can't help sleeping around when women are sexually available, and it is the duty of women to be sexually chaste... I mean, it's not like women have real desires anyway, other than seeking "their fifteen minutes by kissing and telling on national television." She suggests that they need to become mothers in order to understand Elin's position... somehow having given birth will help women understand that they no longer need to be sexual.

She writes:
"Thanks to feminism, women own their own orgasm and a box of Trojans."
I thought great! That's what should be happening! But I guess I didn't read it as she meant for it to be taken, because she goes on to say that divorce and children born out of wedlock are a problem caused by feminism. Not that I think having children out of wedlock is inherently problematic, but if we were really "owning" our Trojans, most children would be planned, and teen/unplanned pregnancy, abortion and STI statistics show that this is not the case.

It makes me angry to read articles like this, especially when it is written by a woman, although I should be just as angry regardless of who writes it. It is not feminism's fault that Tiger Woods, or any other man, had an affair (or many affairs). Blaming women does nothing other than make it easier for people to forgive Tiger while demonizing all women who are not sexually conservative. I see this argument as part of a larger anti-feminist culture of victim blaming and slut-shaming. I don't think that Tiger Woods should be forced into hiding forever for his 'indiscretions' but I do not like that so many people are giving him a free pass while blaming women into tricking or luring him into sleeping with them.