Roe v Wade has been overturned. How do you feel about that?

[River]

Not politicians, perhaps, although I do wonder why a politician would waste his/her time trying to legislate (covertly) against women having casual sex for pure enjoyment. Most politicians just want your vote, and could hardly care less what you do with all your hours spent NOT voting, as long as those hours somehow lead you to vote for them.

These legislative moves play well with their base and make it look like they're working.

I don't think moves to ban abortion and make contraception harder to obtain and so on are so much about slut-shaming as they are about putting women back in their place (whatever that is). Abortion is an easy way to start such a fight because babies. Thing is, though, if it were really about babies, there would not be a simultaneous push to dismantle the social safety net because if parents can't provide their babies with the basics the baby will suffer. It also seems like, if it were really all about the babies, there'd be a vocal national push to bring down infant mortality rates. Especially in the red states, where the anti-abortion movement has claimed the most ground. But...

.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db120.htm. And, to be fair, the rates are declining all over the country. Still, it's interesting to see where they are the highest. And to see how they correlate with poverty.

On the other hand, if you're trying to return to the days when women were essentially men's property, legislation that disempowers half the population from making fundamental health decisions starts to make a little more sense.

[Primula Baggins]

I agree with River that this is the motivation for some people who oppose access to abortion and birth control. Unfortunately that "some" appears to include a lot of powerful governors and legislators, and their corporate overlo— um, underwriters.

From the point of view of some corporations, tying women down at home makes perfect economic sense: it makes families more desperate, and thus makes employees more docile and interchangeable, and therefore cheaper. It's all good.

[Dave_LF]

Wouldn't tying women down at home have the opposite effect by creating a labor shortage?

[Túrin Turambar]

I think that this whole trying to read into motivations thing never works, regardless of who is doing it (eg. they don't care about gay marriage, they just want to destroy marriage). Many people oppose abortion because they view a fetus as a person with the rights of a person. End of discussion.

[River]

Oh, so there is a negative social attitude toward mothers who work today, you say? Yes, definitely. I was shocked.. still am, really... about the negative pushback Sarah Palin got when she decided to run for vice president of the USA while she... gasp! had a young child at home.

Many people, including many liberals who would normally champion a woman's right to choose on many levels, criticized this well-organized woman with every kind of good support system on board because she was choosing to be ambitious when she should have been strictly maternal. As if the two can't coexist. As if that baby, who went with her wherever she was, didn't have far more care and resources than are available to many babies in this country.

People were writing things like "all that travel will interfere with the baby's nap schedule." Really? She shouldn't reach for an important and responsible office, because a child's naps "schedule" (in fact a fairly tenuous thing) might be compromised? Really.

JFK started his run for the oval office in January, 1960. His son John Jr. was born in November, 1960. I wasn't around then, but does anyone here remember him being chastised for running for such an ambitious office while his wife was pregnant with their second child, or while his son was a newborn? Anyone?

Palin's sin, other than just being disliked in general by so many? Not that she wanted to work while she had a young child, but that she was ambitious. She wasn't compromising her 100% time with baby for just a job... surely there are many, many women in this country who are working rather than staying home with their children 24/7... but that her job wasn't subsistence level. She wasn't barely making it, grinding it out in a sweatshop to feed her kids. That would be okay.

If she were working at McDonald's, nights and weekends, to support her family, she would be looked at with pity and understanding. But to leave that child (with his father, who traveled with them, or with competent caregivers, for part of the day) so that she could reach for the stars herself? Unforgivable.

A woman can work only if she has to, while a mother to young children. A woman who wants to work because she wants to continue a personal journey of excellence and achievement (okay, I'm sort of not really talking about Sarah Palin specifically, anymore ) is ostracized and maligned.

It's kind of like the old saw that a woman CAN have sex (well, where are our sons to come from, if she doesn't?) but she can't ENJOY it. If it's just a duty, then society's okay with it. Sorta.

My reasons for not being impressed with Palin were many, but I never held her children against her, nor did I pay much heed to those who did. I assumed that she had the resources to keep her family taken care of. But, since I myself was childless at the time, I wasn't paying much attention to just how complicated American society's view of mothers with careers is. Of course, when you're a woman, there is literally not a single choice you can make that someone won't criticize or throw into you face, but the whole working while you have children, especially small children, is its own special category. "Are you going back to work?" "Are you still working?" "Are you working full time?" Say "No" and you're a drop-out. Say "Yes" and you can almost hear the unspoken, "What about the baby?" Especially if you could, theoretically, not work. I throw in an apologetic "It's the only way to we can get affordable health insurance," because it's true and makes the judgment go away. But what is also true is that I'm not cut out to be a housewife. I'm not sure why I should feel apologetic about that. Equally galling is the fact that the women who are housewives are just as apologetic about their choices. And I don't know what's to be done.

[yovargas]

I don't see what the problem is. Why wouldn't you be able to take care of your baby 24/7 and be a full-time working scientist? Seems like you could pull it off if you were really applying yourself.





(Since that's is a potentially touch subject, I wanted to make it clear that that post was 300% sarcastic. )

[anthriel]

My reasons for not being impressed with Palin were many, but I never held her children against her, nor did I pay much heed to those who did. I assumed that she had the resources to keep her family taken care of. But, since I myself was childless at the time, I wasn't paying much attention to just how complicated American society's view of mothers with careers is. Of course, when you're a woman, there is literally not a single choice you can make that someone won't criticize or throw into you face, but the whole working while you have children, especially small children, is its own special category. "Are you going back to work?" "Are you still working?" "Are you working full time?" Say "No" and you're a drop-out. Say "Yes" and you can almost hear the unspoken, "What about the baby?" Especially if you could, theoretically, not work. I throw in an apologetic "It's the only way to we can get affordable health insurance," because it's true and makes the judgment go away. But what is also true is that I'm not cut out to be a housewife. I'm not sure why I should feel apologetic about that. Equally galling is the fact that the women who are housewives are just as apologetic about their choices. And I don't know what's to be done.

I don't know, either.

Look, I know there were many people who just plain didn't like Palin, and I can respect why they felt that way. Based on her politics, and her persona, and a bunch of stuff like that. There were going to be people who just didn't like her because she was a Republican, just as there are people who will never like anyone who is a Democrat. I can deal with that (she wasn't my favorite, either).

But I was SHOCKED by the people who attacked her for her choices pertaining to her career/motherhood. People who I really thought were all for women's rights were opening chastising her for not staying at home with a nursing bra and apron on, where she should be, darn it. If she HAD to work, if it was not work or not eat, or in your case, not have insurance, then she would get a bye. But she chose to not be at home 24/7 because she had a chance to run for high government office? No way. She was a Bad Mom, no matter how well that child was cared for.

I remember my mother-in-law chastising me for working when my kids were babies, too. I thought that was grossly unfair, since we really had to have the income (sparse though it was) to make it at all. The mortgage itself was all but $200 per month of my husband's pay. Everything else, food, insurance, car expenses, childcare costs (because we paid my mom-in-law to babysit), clothes, power, water, everything else had to be paid out of that $200, plus whatever I could make. Working evening shift did pay a differential, thank God.

I was telling her one time about something I found at work I thought was interesting, and she pursed her lips and was silent for a long few beats. She then very primly stated "I see. You are working, choosing to leave these children rather than be there yourself, because you LIKE your job. I understand, now. I thought so."

So making enough money to pay for the stove to work would only be acceptable if I hated my job, somehow. Liking what I did made it sinful, I guess, that I was away from my children.


And then I started to feel guilty, because I DO like my job. <help> Was I working rather than being with them? Was that a choice? COULD I somehow have stayed home all the time, could we have done it somehow, was I a... Bad Mom?

I think that this whole trying to read into motivations thing never works, regardless of who is doing it (eg. they don't care about gay marriage, they just want to destroy marriage). Many people oppose abortion because they view a fetus as a person with the rights of a person. End of discussion.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

[Jude]

I've heard a lot of criticism of Palin, but none of it was related to her career choices.


Oh, and send your mother-in-law this way. I'd like to have a word with her.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I was SHOCKED by the people who attacked her for her choices pertaining to her career/motherhood. People who I really thought were all for women's rights were opening chastising her for not staying at home with a nursing bra and apron on, where she should be, darn it. If she HAD to work, if it was not work or not eat, or in your case, not have insurance, then she would get a bye. But she chose to not be at home 24/7 because she had a chance to run for high government office? No way. She was a Bad Mom, no matter how well that child was cared for.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I recall a lot people who defended Palin claiming that these type of attacks were being made against her, but I never once actually saw or heard such a thing written or said by someone who was critical of her. It's probably too much at this junction to ask for any examples, but I honestly don't believe that was actually happening, at least nearly as much as some people were claiming that it was.

[River]

I recall some flap regarding her youngest's birth. Her water broke and she didn't immediately drop everything and run to the hospital or something. But her care provider told her she didn't have to. I just figured it was between her and her OB. And now, having been in a vaguely similar situation (water broke, didn't go to the hospital until ~15 hours later) I figure the critics were just clueless. I also recall malicious chatter about her daughter Bristol's pregnancy, but then Obama declared families off limits and while the chatter didn't entirely go away it was shepherded out of the scandal-hungry mainstream.

[anthriel]

I was SHOCKED by the people who attacked her for her choices pertaining to her career/motherhood. People who I really thought were all for women's rights were opening chastising her for not staying at home with a nursing bra and apron on, where she should be, darn it. If she HAD to work, if it was not work or not eat, or in your case, not have insurance, then she would get a bye. But she chose to not be at home 24/7 because she had a chance to run for high government office? No way. She was a Bad Mom, no matter how well that child was cared for.

At the risk of opening a can of worms, I recall a lot people who defended Palin claiming that these type of attacks were being made against her, but I never once actually saw or heard such a thing written or said by someone who was critical of her. It's probably too much at this junction to ask for any examples, but I honestly don't believe that was actually happening, at least nearly as much as some people were claiming that it was.

Hmmmm. Well, I remember it very well. Perhaps most of the examples were things I experienced in the workplace, and even from my own mother; I do seem to remember that some of these things were written in opinion pieces, and even somewhere on the messageboards I was reading. I don't know how much of it is what I read vs. what was said to me in conversation, though.

You'll have to believe me, though, when I say that they were said to me. I clearly remember what was said to me.


Of course, I am doing here what LordM cautioned against upstream; I am guessing as to the reason why people would say/do what they say/do. I may well be wrong, but these are my thoughts.

I should probably not have used Palin as an example. She is too polarizing a figure.

I recall some flap regarding her youngest's birth. Her water broke and she didn't immediately drop everything and run to the hospital or something. But her care provider told her she didn't have to. I just figured it was between her and her OB.

I remember this, too, and I think that was written about? But I won't probably be able to cite sources, this many years later.

Oh, and send your mother-in-law this way. I'd like to have a word with her.

Boy, if that would help....

[Lalaith]

I think that this whole trying to read into motivations thing never works, regardless of who is doing it (eg. they don't care about gay marriage, they just want to destroy marriage). Many people oppose abortion because they view a fetus as a person with the rights of a person. End of discussion.

Precisely. I mean, that's it for me. I have no hidden agenda. I do have personal opinions about sex, marriage, raising children, etc. But I'm not really interested in making anyone else conform to any of my views because I don't think that'd be the right thing to do. But when I view an unborn baby as a person with the rights of a person, then that is a different ballgame.

[Frelga]

I was telling her one time about something I found at work I thought was interesting, and she pursed her lips and was silent for a long few beats. She then very primly stated "I see. You are working, choosing to leave these children rather than be there yourself, because you LIKE your job. I understand, now. I thought so."

But anthy, didn't you know? A woman is not supposed to do anything because SHE enjoys it. Not work, not art, certainly not sex, absolutely not any form of power. She is supposed to be a selfless, altruistic caregiver, and the only things she can legitimately enjoy are those, like shopping and skincare, that make her more enjoyable to others.

Blow that.

There had been many drawbacks to growing up in the Soviet Union, but one distinct advantage was that I was never expected to believe in this particular brand of crap.

[anthriel]

I was telling her one time about something I found at work I thought was interesting, and she pursed her lips and was silent for a long few beats. She then very primly stated "I see. You are working, choosing to leave these children rather than be there yourself, because you LIKE your job. I understand, now. I thought so."

But anthy, didn't you know? A woman is not supposed to do anything because SHE enjoys it. Not work, not art, certainly not sex, absolutely not any form of power. She is supposed to be a selfless, altruistic caregiver, and the only things she can legitimately enjoy are those, like shopping and skincare, that make her more enjoyable to others.

Oh, Frelga. I am so glad for you. Yes! This is exactly what I was trying to say!

Blow that.

Well said, my friend. Well said.

There had been many drawbacks to growing up in the Soviet Union, but one distinct advantage was that I was never expected to believe in this particular brand of crap.

Really? This is an American phenom??

[Primula Baggins]

I think a Western, first-world phenom. Everywhere else, everybody works because it's what people do. If a mother is "home with the kids," she's also home obtaining food and water with no infrastructure, cooking meals with no power, washing clothes with no running water, growing what food she can, and these days maybe running a cottage industry with a flock of goats, or a cell phone she rents out. If she still has a husband, he's down the mines, or working in a city a hundred miles away, or plowing fields with no tractor.

A woman not of the aristocracy (and not a prostitute) who had time and money to spend being ornamental and amusing for men who had time and money to appreciate it . . . that's a phenomenon of the last hundred years, and only in part of the world.

It's not an American invention. Things were fairly rough even in cities in this country back when Jane Austen was taking her very sharp pen to bored upper-class women dozing in ornate drawing rooms.

[Frelga]

Really? This is an American phenom??

Well, my personal observations are limited to the two erstwhile superpowers. Also, this is a statement that covers nearly 600 million people, which means that even if it is generally correct, there are inevitably thousands of exceptions. So we'll correct for that.

That said. No one ever implied that my being intelligent would make boys insecure. No one ever questioned that I would have a career and a family. It wasn't a statement of anything, just a fact of life. It has never occurred to me that engineering, or science, or computers were boy-only areas. There were at least as many girls as boys in the Computer Science department, and quite a few women teaching there. When I read about the obstacles you and Prim and other women had to face for their interest in science and technology, my eyebrows climb so high they practically come down my neck.

That's not to say sexism did not exist, oh, did it ever, just not the particular brand of it that only allows brains and ambitions to men.

ETA: Also this just came up on Pinterest and made me laugh:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Sadly, in many ways it has been, and continues to be, worse in many parts of the third world. Women are expected to not only be baby-making and -raising machines, but also do much of the rest of the work, too. And, of course, the idea that they might possibly enjoy the process of making those babies gave rise to the horror of FGM.

No, the first world has many things to answer for, and the treatment of women has been and continues to be one of them, but not just in the western, first world.

[Túrin Turambar]

Interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald from 2012 that, for some reason, seems to have re-surfaced on the Australian blogosphere. It describes the experience of a woman who travelled from Adelaide to Melbourne to have an illegal abortion in 1965 (notably also prior to the introduction of Australia's national health insurance scheme in 1974).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, the immediate answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is "no". In the biggest abortion decision in years, the high court in a 5-3 vote struck down the draconian Texas law that made abortion virtually unavailable for many woman by forcing most abortion clinics in the state to close by imposing requirements that they undergo costly structural upgrades so as to resemble mini hospitals, and that abortion doctors obtain so-called admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The court held that under Roe v. Wade, this law imposed an undue burden on women's constitutional choice to obtain an abortion, thus reaffirming the core holding of that controversial decision.

Whether this continues to be the case in the future is likely to be one of the results of the presidential election in November.

[Primula Baggins]

Is Anthony Kennedy drifting left?