No Right to Be a Mother?

Is there a right to be a mother? Any reproductive justice advocate would give a decisive YES - reproductive justice means the right to have children, the right not to have children, and the right to parent the children we have.

Problems arise when mothers are imprisoned, far away from their children and their families. They may be sent to isolated federal prisons or locked away in jails with no ability to see their kids. Some women give birth behind bars (escorted in chains to hospitals), only to be forced to leave their newborn babies and return to prison after a few days. The conditions of imprisonment and the policies of the prison system limit women's ability to have children and to parent their own children.

As a law student involved in reproductive justice, I knew all of this before the event, "Women Prisoners: No Right to be a Mother." But the panel brought the intimate problems of being a woman prisoner to life - the panel included two women who were formally incarcerated.

One woman described the reproductive justice abuses she faced. Some issues are so basic that even reproductive justice advocates would overlook them, such as lack of access to sanitary napkins. She explained how degrading it was to be forced to ask men for pads when you were on your period. The prison would ration pads at a certain number per woman, even though some women need more than others. Then you would have to ask for more pads if you had a heavier period one month. She remembered thinking that this must be wrong - why couldn't she get sanitary pads when she needed them? She used this story to show that people on the outside do not even know what every day life is like in prison, or what female prisoners go through on a daily basis.

Professor Joan Petersilia began the talk by saying, "gender matters." Women prisoners are different than incarcerated men. Yet, prisons treat women just like men, adding a few sanitary pads into the equasion. Petersilia argued that the prison system needs to take gender differences seriously to design programs specific to female prisoners. After fighting for equality in the system, we are now asking for different treatment for female prisoners.

And some of that different impact based on gender relates to being a mother (although we should push for the right to parent for imprisoned men too). Robin Levi from Justice Now discussed her work interviewing female prisoners extensively, when they discussed the impact of prison on being a mother. Two-thirds of incarcerated women are mothers of a minor child, but children of incarcerated women often fall into the foster care system or are subject to fast-track adoption. Women in prison deal with visiting restrictions and limits on talking on the phone and writing letters.

Hamdiya Cooks, one of the formerly incarcerated women, said that she never felt like she didn't have a right to be a mother, she always thought that was a possibility with the love and support from family members and advocates to help her from the outside. One woman wrote to Justice Now that she was lucky to have a connection with her son, and grateful that he was raised to know that she was his mother - something that does not happen for most women locked away for decades.

We have to ask: are we serving women and their families by locking them up? The result is that a whole group of women are missing from their families and their communities. As Ms. Cooks said, women are attempting to be equal participants in society, but they are held back by the degrading and violating prison system. Prison conditions take away women's basic humanity. We cannot attain gender equality if we do not recognize the value of every human being.

Look a Little Deeper: Intergenerational Conflict

As this class draws to a close, I want to reconsider one of the first readings we did at the very beginning of the course: “Intergenerational Change in Feminism: Why is it So Hard to Pass the Torch?,” a blog post by Karen Bojar.

Honestly, before this class, I didn’t see much of a generational divide in feminism.  The feminists I know who are older than me have always been gracious, supportive, and helpful: I need only look as far as my own life to see women helping younger women progress as leaders.  So when we first read this article, I viewed it as one of those media debates, which don’t really exist, but which are manipulated to undermine our movement.

After this class, I think that statement is somewhat true.  I do think that to some extent, the generational divide amongst feminists are highlighted by the media to prove that feminism is indeed dead and that it no longer resonates with young women.

But over this past quarter, I have seen a very real divide among feminists, one that goes much deeper than Bojar’s argument that the leadership of the feminist movement is unwilling to pass the torch.  I think that’s true, but I think it’s due to something more upsetting than her claim of older feminist’s desire to control the movement.  I think a substantial portion of this feminist leadership thinks young women are incompetent and unenthusiastic about the future of this movement.

I can tell you from my experience this is untrue.  Look at this article: ask young women like Jessica Valenti (whose books have taught me countless things about the nature of feminism) if young feminists exist.  They do… they just might not look the way older feminists seem to want them to.

But as has been continuously cited throughout this symposium, a lot of young feminists don’t “look like” feminists.  We dress like “sluts”… or not.  But some of us do, and this seems to be the single defining factor of our generation, at least if you ask other generations.  It’s our “screw you” to the hard work of the women who came before us… and they’re angry.

I admit that I come from a biased position: I like mini skirts and I enjoy dressing up.  To me, it’s not an undermining of the feminist movement, but an embrace of it.  That I believe that I can wear whatever I want, and still demand to be treated with respect and still claim my right to walk safely wherever I choose is a direct result of the strides of the feminist movement. 

If we can’t look past surface differences like how we choose to dress or what forum we use for discussion, there will be an unbridgeable divide between the different generations of feminism.  But, if, as has been my personal experience, young women feel comfortable expressing themselves to older feminists, and feel respected and appreciated by them, this young generation of feminism could be unstoppable.  

Feminist Humor

I have two all-time favorite Ms. Magazine covers.  The first is the “Rape is Rape” cover, which I think is brilliant in all its stark simplicity.  The second is the cartoon in which the man says, “Did you know the feminist movement has no sense of humor?”  To which the woman replies, “No, but hum a few bars and I’ll fake it.”  This is the cover that Professor Fisher-Fishkin used as the first image of the night during her lecture on feminist humor and it could not be more apt.  The thing about feminist humor is: it’s subversive, it’s self-referential, it’s revolutionary… but above all, it’s funny. 

Professor Fisher-Fishkin began her talk with a quote from Mark Twain,  “Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.”  This theme of humor as a weapon was something that pervaded her talk as she went on to discuss the ways in which feminists can and do use humor as a revolutionary tool.  As Professor Fisher-Fishkin said, “any joke is potentially subversive” and I think that she did a great job of displaying the diverse ways in which feminist humor can subvert the dominant paradigm.

She dove into examples such as inversion (flipping the gender to point out the absurdism of sexism), impersonation, and illumination (making the invisible visible).

Before taking questions and examples, she ended with the quote, “Feminist humor is serious and it is about changing this world.”

Overall, I thought this was a fantastic lecture that proved feminists can take a joke… as long as it’s funny.

However, when she then asked the audience for questions and examples, the generational divide reared its ugly head.  One of the older members of the audience stood up and discussed how young women are setting the feminist movement back by self-objectifying through dress.

I’m quite frankly sick of hearing this argument.  While I do think there is something to be said for the case that young women should not feel pressured to be sexual, I also think there’s nothing wrong with a young adult choosing to express her sexuality through her choice in clothing… even if that makes some older feminists think she’s dressing like a slut.  It’s time we stop slut-shaming and look at the deeper issues affecting women and the objectification of their sexuality.

That being said, from there, the audience participation took a more humorous tone as people began to share their favorite examples of feminist humor.   A favorite of mine was the sharing of “Feminist Hulk,” an anonymous Twitter account which is here to “SMASH GENDER BINARY.”

Feminist humor is awesome and here to stay.  Yes, feminism takes on serious issues: rape, the wage gap, reproductive justice… But that doesn’t mean that we can’t revolutionize with a laugh or two.  Humor may be the best medicine… but it’s also the best weapon.

Krawitz's Mirror Mirror and In Harm's Way

Jan Krawitz, a filmmaker and Stanford professor in Communications and Art History, presented two of her short films that highlight issues concerning violence, intolerance, self-doubt and objectification on February 27^t, 2011. The first film we screened was Mirror Mirror. This film investigated a variety of women’s opinions on body image and the idealized female body. Sitting in front of a plethora of mannequins, each woman told her story about her own body image while wearing a white mask—with each scene switching back and forth between the women and shots of early twentieth century clips of beauty pageants and ads about the ideal female body.

I’ve watched the first film in section for FEMST 101: Intro to Feminist Studies in the fall of 2010. My initial reaction to the short documentary was unfortunately superficial. But upon rewatching the film, I thought it was very interesting how Krawitz set the two time periods, the interviews of the women in 1990 and the early twentieth century clips, side by side. It was striking to see how the idealized female body changed—from being a figure with perfect curves to being a figure that always needs to be “smaller”—from one time period to the next. Despite these changes, however, the objectivity of the female body never changed. Even one’s own body is subject to be looked at not only by others but also by the individual herself.

The second film, In Harm’s Way, explored the paradoxes Krawitz sees between what individuals are taught as children and the actual experiences adults endure. She bases this film off her own experiences leading up to an event that changed her life forever. Beginning by telling all of the ways her family, the US government, and educational institutions instilled a sense of safety around everything that is American; Krawitz looks back and realizes that the tactics used to teach this sense of safety were invalid. Two interesting examples she used regarded the Cold War and how there was this shared idea that school children and families would be okay should the US fall under nuclear attack and the ideology to avoid from strangers. Later on, she discusses her experience as a victim of random sexual assault and how this one experience changed her life in a drastic way: though she was taught that if you took the necessary precautions and shielded yourself from danger you would be safe. At the end of the screening the first question from the audience asked whether or not Krawitz’s attacker was ever caught and brought to justice. Krawitz answered by saying that she doesn’t like to answer this question because despite the fate of her attacker, her experience will never change; that the impact of being a random victim of sexual assault had on her is more important than whether or not he was ever caught. I wonder if Krawitz would ever analyze her childhood the same way she did in her memoir if she was never attacked. It’s fascinating to me how one event could change your whole outlook on your own life and the world around you. It’s unfortunate, however, that most life-impacting events are as horrifying as Krawitz’s.

Dr. Leandra Zarnow on "Trans-Ms.ions: Bust and Bitch Magazines and The Popular Feminist Tradition"

Ms. Magazine has had a large impact on feminist discourse, political action, and theories to date. But as Dr. Leandra Zarnow, an Advancing the Humanities History Fellow at Stanford, wanted to express: Ms. should not be seen as a forerunner to Bust and bitch, two magazines whose first issues came out in 1993 and 1996, respectively. On February 15^th, Dr. Zarnow began relaying the histories behind Bust and bitch, illustrating the intricate ways in which they came to fruition. Though Ms. Magazine helped to pave a way for feminism in print media, it was really from Sassy, a magazine aimed at teenage females in late 1980s, where Bust and bitch drew their inspiration. Moving away from thinking of Ms. Magazine as the mother of all magazines was a very interesting approach in Dr. Zarnow’s talk, but it was an approach that I very well appreciated.

As a first generation feminist I did not grow up reading Ms. Magazine nor have I ever really known the significance behind it. Until very recently, however, the magazines Bust, bitch, and Ms. were three magazines I began to hear about upon declaring my major in feminist studies. Since I’ve been given the opportunity to attend so many eye-opening events that are a part of the 40^th anniversary celebration of Ms. Magazine, my initial view of Ms. was a very matriarchal one. So I was utterly shocked to find out, yet very thankful that the symposium included other publications not only to show that there are, in fact, other feminist publications circulating, but also there are feminist publications that should not be shadowed by Ms. on any occasion (especially during Ms.’s 40^th anniversary).

According to Dr. Zarnow, the mother-daughter trope associated with Bust and bitch in relation to Ms. Magazine is too simplistic. Such a trope disconnects generations and fosters a sort of “battle of the ages” that blurs many of the shared ideas between them. It was really interesting to hear this idea about older and younger generations of feminists being played out in terms of the publications, as it has been a topic of not only our class’ discussions, but also a topic that has been brought up throughout the symposium. I think a lot of the reason why there is such a schism between the generations is because we, as a society, tend to measure the value and worth of things, people, and institutions by virtue of their respective dates of patent, birth or establishment. Moving away from this ideology is difficult, especially when we continue to award and certify and therefore place more value on various things as they progress throughout whatever measurement of time is appropriate for that thing or person (e.g. a career, models, or life span). Although I do believe that experience does help to gain capital, I think we, as feminists, should not structure such capital hierarchically. Rather, as Dr. Zarnow expressed, we should look at our past, present and future kaleidoscopically: a tiny shift in one idea may spark ten more ideas, but those ideas aren’t necessarily a 180 turn from the big picture.

Human Trafficking Today

            On Valentine’s Day, The Stanford Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) hosted a discussion on a topic that many people would probably agree is not particularly romantic, yet is of great importance.  As part of their Human Trafficking is Global Slavery series, the CDDRL’s seminar “The Context of Human Trafficking Today” was moderated by Helen Stacy, the director of the program on Human Rights at the Stanford Law School, and included two outstanding figures in the field of Human Trafficking.

            Both of the speakers clearly have indispensible knowledge of and experience in Human Trafficking.  Their approaches, however, are quite unique.  The first speaker, Anne Gallagher is a former advisor on Trafficking at the Office of the UN High Commission for Human Rights.  Throughout her portion of the presentation, she emphasized the fact that she was trained as a human rights attorney and thus her approach to combating Human Trafficking is influenced by the legal system in which she works.  Her work has been focused on initiating effective and long lasting legal and policy changes on the international level.  Her focus lies more in transnational human trafficking in South East Asia.  Her presentation was centered on discussing human trafficking as a crime that must be punished.  She advised people in the audience that were interested in pursuing the topic further, to progress with caution and to not be afraid to voice skepticism and formulate opinions and views for oneself.  She also warned against allowing oneself to confuse the actual law with what one wishes it were.

The second speaker, Rosi Orozco, is a Congressional Representative from Mexico and the President on the Special Commission Against Human Trafficking in Mexico.  Orozco’s area of focus is more regionally based and addresses human rights violations as they pertain to human trafficking in Mexico and the United States.  Her presentation was somewhat more moralistic and emotionally charged than Gallagher’s.  She discussed her direct interactions with victims of human trafficking, mostly young women and girls, as well as the uphill battle that she has faced since she first became a Congresswoman and expressed her commitment to fighting human trafficking in Mexico.  Throughout her presentation, she continuously emphasized the fact that Human Trafficking is wrong and therefore should be criminalized and punished harshly.

The event itself was more formal than some of the other symposium event that I have attended.  Also, it was somewhat unclear at whom the event was primarily targeted.  It seemed that there was an expectation that people in the audience already be familiar with the topic of human trafficking.  However, as the Q&A session that followed the discussion clearly demonstrated, that was not the case.  One man’s question seemed to indicate that he was unaware of the difference between prostitution and human sex trafficking.  I personally felt that Gallagher’s presentation offered more of an opportunity for audience members to critically analyze the subject of human trafficking.  Orozco perhaps could have offered more insight into how she as a congresswoman has gone about implementing change on a policy level in Mexico and what the effect of those changes look like for the Mexican people on the local level.

Anat Hoffman: Civil and Women's Right in Israel (What a Riot!)

I walked into Stanford’s Hillel on Wednesday at noon to see a group of students eating lunch at a small table. Each one of them had a look of absolute captivation as a charismatic Israeli woman told the story of her political battle with a corrupt phone company. It was Anat Hoffman, one of Israel’s major leaders for social justice. When we were told that it was time to move to the other room for the actual presentation, Hoffman looked up with feigned upset, commenting in her blunt Israeli accent, “So everyone gets to eat but me?” It was immediately clear that she would be an exciting speaker.

Hoffman’s presentation turned out to be better than I could have imagined. She first told of her background, explaining Israel’s black and white way of viewing Judaism. She, along with many other Israelis, used to view Orthodoxy as the only type of Judaism, there to either fully accept or reject. But while attending UCLA (her grades, she commented, were terrible, but she was recruited for swimming), Hoffman suddenly realized that she could connect with Reform Judaism. Taking this back to Israel, she served as a city councilor in the orthodox city of Jerusalem and then made her way to the Supreme Court, a major accomplishment for a liberal Israeli woman (although not incredibly surprising after seeing her speak with such presence, humor, and confidence).

One of Hoffman’s major life work relates to her place as a founding member of Women of the Wall, which aims to achieve the right for women to wear tallitot (prayer shawls), pray aloud, and read from the Torah at the Western Wall. The Orthodox argue that these practices offend them, and therefore they are illegal, with the penalty of up to one year in prison. So while men can pray and read Torah and have bar mitzvahs on their 48-meter section of the Wall, women can only pray silently in their crowded 12-meter section. Finding this absolutely unacceptable, Hoffman organized a demonstration in which she held the Torah with the intent to read. We saw a video of the event, including her arrest. While she was released with international intervention, the case is still pending - as she put it, the government's attempt to keep her in fear.

Hoffman described the way in which the ultra-Orthodox attempt to rule the country. She explained gender-segregation on buses, with women expected to sit in the back to maintain their modesty. Orthodox women themselves cited this as the Jewish way to ride, a safer way to ride, a healthy rejection of Western values. But as the executive director of the Israel Religion Action Center (IRAC), Hoffman helped bring to light the illegality of this state segregation. When segregation continued despite notices being put on each bus, women in the movement began riding on the buses – almost like occupying buses – and inviting Orthodox women to sit next to them. This should remind us of a little something in our history that shook our country in the 60s…

The issue of voice continues to be a problem, as some Orthodox IDF (Israeli Defense Force) soldiers claim to be unable to hear females in uniform singing Hatikvah (the Israeli national anthem) or speaking at army events. However, Hoffman pointed out the exciting news that the generals and chief rabbi of the army disagree with these soldiers, marking an internal struggle for justice within the IDF.

Many of Israel’s social justice issues center around religion, a touchy, personal subject for many people, especially in the Jewish state. How can one person tell another that their way of practicing religion is fundamentally flawed? Where do we draw the line between religious custom and violation of human rights?

Hoffman’s talk certainly lit the fire for many of her audience members, senior citizens and students alike. She encouraged us as Americans (and specifically, as Californians) to stop worrying about outside threats to Israel and to start using our influence to affect what is occurring within the country itself. I am certainly ready to take action with Hoffman’s Women of the Wall; I plan to do whatever I can from this sunny place in California to progress the issue of religious pluralism and social justice in Israel.