femwords

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 22:01:00 +0000

Hi Everybody: I want to commend the new issue of On the Issues to you. The entire issue is excellent, but there is a wonderful article about the Trans Health Initiative at the Atlanta Feminist Women's Health Center.

I wrote the staff, Nancy Boothe, Jac Camp and Lola Fleckenstein the following note to commend them on this program.

Dear FWHC Staff, Executive Director Nancy Boothe, Jac Camp and Lola Fleckenstein:
While reading about the Trans Health Initiative at the Atlanta Feminist Women’s Health Center in the article by Eleanor J. Bader in On the Issues Magazine, tears of joy came to my eyes. You courageously serve people who are undergoing medically complicated treatments with care and dignity. I commend you. I’m sure we’re going to learn a lot more about our sexuality and health through your program.
The Feminist Women’s Health Centers were founded to give us control over our own bodies. We gained first-hand knowledge of our bodies in a non-judgmental setting, the Self-Help Clinic. You are carrying on your thirty-two-year tradition, enabling those who make the healthy decision to express their sexuality to receive respectful, competent medical treatment.
Here is a small contribution to the Robert Eads Clinic. Please let me know if I can be of any support to your efforts.
In Sisterhood,
Carol Downer

Why I Favor But Will Not Work for Government Health Reform

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:08:00 +0000

A respected colleague from the Women's Health Movement urges me to join in the battle for Obama's health reform. In one e-mail, she sent me and other pro-choice contacts a pro-choice joke that she did not feel free to send to the other contacts on her health reform e-mail list, who presumably are anti-choice. This is my response to her.

Dear Cathy:
You stated that you believe that the single-payer health care issue is the civil rights issue of our time. I would like to explain to you why I will not be putting my effort into this struggle, even though, of course, I would like to get rid of the insurance companies. Health care should never be commodified and sold for profit.
1. Single-Issuism: The demand for single payer health care has attracted the support of a broad spectrum of groups. That is the good part. Unfortunately, it seems that many people are so desperate for a coalition effort that they will betray their own interests, because they believe this to be a winning strategy. For example, some feminists downplay their demands for abortion rights so as not to offend those who oppose abortion. (I haven’t noticed anti-choice groups within our health reform coalition downplaying their bigotry, by the way.)
I believe it is a losing strategy to compromise your basic principles, especially when you consider that the majority of American people support health care reform already so it is unnecessary to compromise our principles to get support. (you notice that that widespread support hasn’t impressed President Obama. (Apparently, President Obama seems to think that going for the middle ground is a smart strategy even when the lines of the battle are drawn between big corporations against the will of the people. No matter how he has gutted his plan, members of Congress, who are dependent on contributions from the insurance companies, won’t support his weak-as-water proposal and, of course, he can’t get the American people excited about such a timid proposal either. Presently, even if we get a “public option”, that won’t stop health insurance companies from denying care on some pretext or another.
2. No demand for improved quality of health care: We in the women’s health movement know how downright dangerous a lot of health care is, especially for women, so how can I get excited about wanting more of it? For example, over a third of births in the United States are by cesarean section, and women with private insurance are even more likely to get dangerous intervention in their births.
Michael Moore’s “Sicko” didn’t even touch that taboo subject. What makes us think that doctors and hospitals will stop doling out drugs and doing unnecessary surgeries just because the taxpayers are footing the bill?
It’s true that many of the people without health insurance are poor and of color, so at first glance it seems “politically correct” to fight to get them insured some way or another. Rather, we need to be fighting for safe working conditions and fair wages, against locating toxic dumps in poor neighborhoods, decriminalizing drug use, for regulations to prohibit the over-processing of food and and the misleading of American consumers about the dangers of processed foods and for protection of independent farmers. The reason poor people and people of color have more health problems is their exposure to environmental hazards at work and in their communities, their lack of access to quality food, and stress.
3. No challenging of imperialism and capitalism. I’m not suggesting that we abandon our fight for good health care and to only fight to stop U.S. aggression and the takeover of American society by big corporations, but I think a successful fight for good health care needs to take careful aim at the real sources of the problem. For example, even though the money that our country has spent on the wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan could easily pay for health care, and therefore some make the argument that we should spend our budget for single-payer insurance, not war, the real problem is that our whole oil-based way of life is destructive of the our health, our planet and wasteful of our resources, and that these wars have been waged to maintain that lifestyle. Here again, when we make the argument that “a country as rich as ours should be able to provide health care for its citizens”, we’re ignoring that the wealth of this country comes from the exploitation of other countries, and we’re also ignoring that most of the wealth of this country is centered in the top one percent. This argument actually reinforces the myth that American’s hard work alone has resulted in having great wealth.

“Well, we didn’t succeed, but at least we tried”, isn’t a good enough rationalization for expending our limited time and energy on a movement that, even if successful, would exclude abortion from coverage and wouldn’t address the fundamental problems.
In struggle, Carol

Is a Gynecology Exam a Violation of our Body?

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:37:00 +0000

I received an e-mail from Cassandra who has a blog, homebirthissafe.blogspot.com, who asked me to write an article on my blog and site about the harm from the routine gynecological visit. Cassandra also referred me to “women against stirrups” on Yahoo.
I totally agree with Cassandra that the annual gynecological visit is unnecessary. Many times women experience humiliation and distress, and in a fair number of cases, women receive unnecessary and sometimes harmful treatment. For example, many women in their forties and older dutifully go into the gynecologist’s office for a check-up, even though they have no symptoms of a problem, but leave the doctor’s office with a prescription for hormone-like drugs to treat their “dry vagina”.
How does this typically happen? If a woman is not having regular penis-vagina sex, the lining of her vagina becomes thinner. Because of the sexism in our society, men don’t seek out the company of women over 40 and those men that are married to women over 40 are getting older themselves and often they desire less sex. Also, many women are divorced or widowed or never-married and they are relieved that they don’t have to spend time and energy on maintaining a relationship with a man. As a result, even if a woman stays sexually active with other women or if she masturbates, the thick ridges of her vagina tend to flatten out some. Sometimes, the wall is so thin that when you put in a speculum, the vagina may develop small tears that bleed, leaving a trace of blood on the speculum when it is removed.
Immediately, the doctor informs the woman that she has “dry vagina” and has an inadequate supply of the hormone, estrogen, and she/he prescribes a hormone-like drug to build up the vaginal walls. The completely healthy woman is now taking a dangerous drug to cure a condition that she didn’t even care about.
Another common situation which leads a woman to become a candidate for hormone-like drug therapy is when a woman has some vaginal itching or discharge that prompts her to douche, and repeated douching can lead to vaginal dryness and itching. Unfortunately, since many women don’t know that vaginal secretions are normal, especially around the time of ovulation in the middle of their menstrual cycle, they douche and douche and douche, sometimes even using deodorant sprays for their nonexistent problem.
We found in our self-help clinics that we could treat this “dry vagina” problem by inserting a speculum or a dildo once a day for a few weeks (or sometimes women have used graduated smooth metal rods that their doctors have given them). This stimulation of the vaginal walls prompts them to thicken (much like the sole of the feet thickens by walking on them).
I have counseled several women to use this technique and it has been quite successful. One woman was referred to me by a women’s clinic, because she was having difficulty is having penis-vagina sex. She was in her early forties. She and her husband started a small business in their mid-thirties. Running the business took all of their time; they had no days off or vacations. Her husband, who was a few years older than she, lost interest in sex. Finally, when the business became more successful, they were able to recreate and have a social life. Then, when they tried to have sex, her husband had trouble maintaining an erection and she was experiencing pain and bleeding. I mailed her a speculum and she inserted it daily for a couple of weeks. We also talked about ways to make sure she was lubricated. She told me that her husband was attentive and considerate lover, but he was easily discouraged, and wouldn’t even try to have sex if he couldn’t feel confident that he could maintain his erection. She kept up her speculum routine anyway. Finally, he tried again and was successful and she was able to tolerate the insertion of the penis. In fact, she called the next morning to share how much she’d enjoyed herself!
The medical profession is totally ignorant of the realities of women’s lives, and it has nothing to offer us but drugs and surgery. I agree with Cassandra that women who are given hormone-like drugs for the treatment of “dry vagina” would have been much better off if they had never visited a gynecologist!

TRIBUTE TO DR. GEORGE TILLER, JUNE 6, 2009

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:51:00 +0000

The following is a speech given by Carol Downer at the Santa Monica 3rd street Promenade on June 6, 2009.

MY NAME IS CAROL DOWNER AND I AM HERE TODAY TO HONOR GEORGE TILLER BY ACKNOWLEDGING HIS HUMANITY AND HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR SOCIETY.

OUR CLINIC, THE FEMINISTS WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, PROVIDED ABORTIONS IN LOS ANGELES FROM 1973, 50 DAYS AFTER THE ROE V. WADE DECISION. IT WAS BURNED DOWN BY ANTI-ABORTIONISTS IN 1984.

IT WAS MY PRIVILEGE TO KNOW DR. TILLER WHEN I WAS A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ABORTION FEDERATION WHERE I WAS ACTIVE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS.

HE WAS A WARM, GENEROUS AND EXTREMELY WISE PERSON. I AM GRIEVING HIS DEATH DEEPLY.

GEORGE EXPRESSED HIS PROFOUND RESPECT FOR A WOMAN'S DECISION TO HAVE AN ABORTION.

I QUOTE: "IT IS MY FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY THAT PATIENTS ARE EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, MORALLY, SPIRITUALLY AND PHYSICALLY COMPETENT TO STRUGGLE WITH COMPLEX HEALTH ISSUES AND COME TO DECISIONS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THEM" Dr. George Tiller

Although only 5% of abortions are performed past the 20th week of pregnancy, and only 1% of abortions are performed past the 24th week of pregnancy, the circumstances that only the most ignorant or malevolent person would deny a girl or a woman access to an abortion, no matter what their religious belief.

Unfortunately, we have few physicians who are willing to perform abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy. Why? Because doctors not only fear that, if they have a complication, they will be harassed or even killed, but also because they fear they will lose their license to practice medicine, or they will even be criminally prosecuted. Remember, although early abortion is a safe, pretty easy procedure, later abortion becomes more risky, although never as risky as carrying the pregnancy to term and giving birth. So, even with the best of care, complications will happen. In the State of California, we have vicious people who have dedicated their lives to pressuring county coroners and the state licensing boards to investigate and prosecute every doctor who has a serious complication.

In 1996, Dr. Bruce Steir was charged in Riverside County with second-degree murder for the abortion-related death of a woman who was 20 weeks pregnant, and, despite the testimony of several nationally-known and respected medical experts at the preliminary hearing that he had done absolutely nothing below the standard of care, the Judge ordered a trial. Depleted of his life savings and fearing an unfair trial, Dr. Steir, 74 years old at the time, plea bargained and, there he was, a doctor who had performed thousands of abortions, sitting gin jail for six months.

Today, as I stand here, I can safely predict that within the next few years, another abortion doctor will find herself or himself needing support for a legal defense. Complications will happen, despite the best of care. We must not let abortion doctors who have committed no wrong find themselves serving time in jail or ending up penniless because they were not adequately supported by the pro-choice community.

Now I want to talk about what needs to be done.

It is necessary to speak-out about the lack of protection that Dr. Tiller and other abortion providers get from law enforcement agencies. Hopefully, they will the protests of the pro-choice community. But, it is not enough. Think about it. Approximately a million American women each year benefit from the courage and commitment and caring of abortion providers, hospitals, doctors, clinics and escorts and other supporters. I know these millions of women are with us in spirit today, but they are not coming forward to protest the killing of an abortion doctor.

Why?

Justice Blackmun, in his Roe v. Wade decision built a great, big closet for us who get abortions to hide in. He called it "The Right to Privacy". And, by the millions, we have hidden in that closet, and we have stayed hidden in that closet. We have got to come out of that closet if we want to protect the right of other women to have help, like we got help when we needed it. We have got to say, "Yes, I had an abortion. My name is Carol Downer. I had an abortion in 1965 when I already had four children and was getting a much-needed divorce. Then, after remarrying and having two more children, I had another in Los Angeles, and my e-mail address is cdowner@sbcglobal.net"

We need privacy when we become unhappily pregnancy, to consider our alternatives and we need privacy to seek out and receive abortion care. But, after our personal crisis is over, if we don't start coming out of that closet in the hundreds and in the thousands, the killers and bombers and screamers and misanthropes will get their way. George TIller will have died in vain.

I would like to ask anyone who has had an abortion and who is willing to speak-out publically to come forward to identify herself right now. Brothers, and sisters who have not had an abortion, we need your support too, but right now, right this minute, from this time forward, this is the time for us who have had abortions to make our voices heard. So, as Harvey Milk would say, come on out!

THANK YOU

DEMO AGAINST OBAMA WAR POLICY

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:58:00 +0000

Wednesday, May 27, was a great opportunity to express my opposition to the occupations/wars in Iraq and "AF-PAK" and to reach out to similarly-minded women to invite them to our self-help clinic on Sunday, May 31. There were several hundred people there, standing on the grassy strip across from the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel where Obama was speaking at a fund-raiser.

I gave out over 40 leaflets. The title of the leaflet "Women's Opposition to Imperialism Starts With Decolonizing Our Bodies" was quite well received. Especially 3 young women who were enthused about the day's event and helped distribute leaflets and carried my sign. I'm putting the leaflet on the blog. It expresses self-helper's belief that anti-imperialism and regaining direct control over our bodies are linked.

I'm enclosing some pictures of the World Can't Wait protest against torture and also some protesters against the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Proposition 8 that bars same sex marriage. The group photo is of Barbara Shank, Sandra Ramos and myself.

Photos courtesy of Sandra Ramos.

30 YEARS TOO LATE...

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:36:00 +0000

LA Times, Sunday, May 17, 2009 "CHILDBIRTH: CAN THE U.S. IMPROVE? C-Sections are expensive. Doctors ask if we're doing too many." by: Lisa Girion (lisa.girion@latimes.com)

The article reported that C-Sections are performed 31% of births with an increase in complications and risks. I wrote the author the following letter:

Dear Ms. Girion: The answer to the headline is "Yes!"
I am very happy to see this valuable information on the pages of the Los Angeles Times. Thank you for your excellent coverage.

In 1979, I, (and 3 other women) was arrested for trespassing in Tallahassee, Florida for making an inspection of the maternity ward to protest the rise in cesareans from 5% to a shocking 15%. I was subsequently convicted and served a few days in jail, but my conviction was set aside by the Florida Supreme Court on the grounds that we had not had notice that our entering the maternity ward would be trespassing. Of course, any repetition would not have that defense.

I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I wish the article had been either in the front news section or the health section, instead of the business section where many women will not see it. Also, it continues to stun me that only a severe recession and spiraling health costs can force the medical profession to put women and children's health first.

Thank you, Carol Downer

WHAT WOULD A WOMEN'S REVOLUTION LOOK LIKE?

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Tue, 26 May 2009 20:18:00 +0000

This piece is a work in progress and any additional information or comments is greatly appreciated.

WHAT WOULD A WOMEN'S REVOLUTION LOOK LIKE?

Adapted from "War and Revolution" by Nicholas S. Timasheff, Sheed & Ward, New York, 1965

Re-paraphrasing by Carol Downer

Chapter 7, From Order to Revolution

The Pre-Revolutionary Stage

p. 139: NST: "Revolution is a political conflict within a nation lifted to the level of fighting between the government and an opposition party."

CAD: Revolution is an ongoing political conflict within a family, community, organization, political subdivision lifted to the level of sharp conflict between the patriarchal and/or capitalistic and/or imperialistic ruling and the women and their allies.

p. 140: NST: "In revolution, the antagonists are heterogeneous and partly undetermined: the government is opposed by a group (a revolutionary party), or a revolutionary movement (sometimes by a prophetic leader), or a revolutionary mob, quickly assembling and again dispersing."

CAD: In a women's revolution, the patriarchal family structure is opposed by an individual woman, an agency of the patriarchal state is opposed by either the individual woman or a women's group, or the patriarchal state is opposed by a collection of revolutionary women's groups, or a patriarchal agency or state opposed by revolutionary mobs of women, quickly assembling and against dispersing, such as anti-rape zap actions.

p. 140: NST: "In the origin of a revolution, it is of paramount importance whether the government is isolated, or supported by a minority which may be well or poorly organized, or by large masses, opposed by other, revolutionary masses). Consequently, in revolution both opposing groups may be small; one may be small and the other large; or both may be large, comprising together almost the totality of the adult population."

CAD: In the origin of a woman's revolution, it is of paramount importance whether the patriarchal structure (family, agency, state) is isolated, or supported by a minority which may be well or poorly organized, or in the case of the patriarchal state, us supported by large masses who may oppose the women's revolutionary actions.
CAD: In the second wave, the male superstructure was not isolated; it was supported by large masses of males and large masses of counter-revolutionary females; there were revolutionary masses and the revolutionary movement was split into at least two main factions; the reformists and the radical feminists (women's liberationists). There was no revolutionary party.

p. 140: NST: "Each of the revolutionary factions may remain unorganized (a mass), or organized, on the lower level of a revolutionary movement, or at the higher level of a revolutionary party (eventually, a conspiracy)."

CAD: In the second wave, the patriarchal government was not isolated; it was supported by patriarchal institutions and by large masses of males, and by patriarchal mobs who attacked women who tried to access abortion clinics, and who bombed clinics and shot abortion doctors. There were also large masses of counter-revolutionary females. The revolutionary movement was split into at lease two main factions; the reformists and the radical feminists. There was no revolutionary party.

p. 140: NST: "Between a government and the revolutionary opposition, a sharp incompatibility of goals is necessarily present. The goal of the opposition (eventually, of each of its factions) is change in political leadership and/or change in the government's policy; in more drastic cases, change of the total political and/or social order."

CAD: In the case of a women's revolution, between the patriarchal family, group, agency or state and the feminist forces, a sharp incompatibility of goals in necessarily present. The goal of the feminist opposition (eventually, of each of its factions) is change in political leadership and/or change in the patriarchy's policy; in more drastic cases, change of the total political and/or social order.

p. 140: NST: "The goal of the government is not to cede political power and/or not to grant the demanded changes. Every revolution is reducible to the political phase of human co-existence. The point at issue is always this: who shall make the political decisions, and what shall those decisions be? But the dissent separating the government from the opposition may be purely political, or it may reflect, in political terms and demands, dissent in other phases of social and cultural life, just as war, though always on the political level, may reflect economic, nationalistic, or religious or secular ideological conflicts."

CAD: The goal of the patriarchal superstructure is not to cede political power and/or not to grant the demanded changes. Every revolution is reducible to the political phase of human co-existence. The point at issue is always this: who shall make the political decisions, and what shall those decisions be?

In a true women's revolution, feminist opposition will reflect, in political terms and demands, dissent in other phases of social and cultural life, and will reflect a goal of changing the economic, nationalistic, religious or secular ideological order.

p. 141: NST: "Purely political antagonisms conducive to revolution may be divided into two levels. On the lower level, the existing organization of the government is not questioned, but, in the opposition's view, the existing government is inefficient, stupid, corrupt, oppressive, or combined two or more of these traits. The goal of the opposition, at least on the verbal level, is to replace inefficient and stupid personalities by efficient and intelligent ones, corrupt functionaries by models of honesty, abject tyrants by men respecting the freedom and dignity of their fellow men."

CAD: A reformist feminists' dissent from the patriarchal government may be purely political. For example, recent feminist opposition to the Bush Administration and its war policies, was limited to getting Hilary Clinton elected, or, failing that, at least getting Barack Obama elected.

p. 141: NST: "On the upper level, the very form of the government is questioned. In this case, new political ideals are involved. These new ideals were either generated in the society where the revolutionary movement is going on, or elsewhere, but received through diffusion."

CAD: On the upper level, the very patriarchal form of the family, organization or government is questioned. In this case, new political ideas, such as peace, stopping global warming, non-authoritarian child-rearing, are involved. These new ideals were either generated in the society where the revolutionary is going on, or elsewhere, but received through diffusion.

p. 141: NST: "An absolute monarchy may be under attack on the part of believers in constitutional monarchy or republic, an aristocratic republic may be denounced in the name of democracy. But the bearers of 'progressive ideas' have no monopoly: those preferring old-fashioned monarchy or one of the brands of dictatorship may conspire against democracy and eventually become a revolutionary opposition."

CAD: In a women's revolution, the goal is to start the process of taking the power away from the patriarchy and to implement feminist ideals of ending imperialism and modifying the industrial revolution to achieve the health and welfare of everyone without endangering the environment. But the bearers of "progressive ideas" have no monopoly; those preferring the old patriarchal world order with inadequate reforms may conspire against this process and co-opt these ideas to eventually become a reformist opposition to the feminist revolutionary process.

Los Angeles to eliminate backlog of Rape-Kits

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:19:00 +0000

WE DID IT!

Good news! L.A. is going to eliminate the backlog of rape kits. Hopefully, this will help some women get justice and will prevent some repeat rapists from continuing their crimes.
Carol Downer

Hollywood NOW - WE DID IT!!!!

Last evening, LA City Council approved the budget and they have in fact funded a system that will eradicate the backlog of untested rape kits AND hold the LAPD accountable for the expenditure of funds allocated. THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE OF YOU!!!!

The City of Los Angeles and various organizations have been working on this issue for years. Because of your efforts, we were able to to show them that they couldn't ignore this problem any longer! Thank you especially to Human Rights Watch for their leadership and dedication.

We are so grateful to our leaders for this issue on City Council - Council President Eric Garcetti; Council President Pro Tempore Wendy Greuel (our next Controller!!); and Councilmember Jack Weiss. While it was the collective effort of the Council's vote yesterday that ultimately approved this budget item, these three leaders have worked hard to make sure this remains a priority for LA & we are grateful for their leadership.

Hollywood NOW thanks LA City Council for doing the right thing - not just by giving funds but also by holding LAPD accountable for their procedures. Over the next two years, we will eradicate the backlog of untested rape kits evidence as long as the Council continues to work with LAPD on a system that holds everyone accountable.

Thank you to everyone who has worked with us on this issue. We will continue to give you updates as we progress in testing the rape kit evidence.

Be proud today! We made a difference!
-Lindsey
President, Hollywood NOW

Recommender Book: Natural Liberty

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:25:00 +0000

I'm writing about a new book on self-induced abortion. I have read thoroughly (except for the part on herbal abortifacients, about which I am not knowledgeable). I am excited about this book, because it brings together information that we women need to have about how to have an abortion outside the medical profession's control.

I have spoken to one of the authors and I am impressed with their responsibility. I know that at least some of the collective have experience in doing menstrual extraction in a self-help group. The book is written in a careful and comprehensive manner.

I recommend that your order the book. It is available on the websites, http://www.sisterzeus.com/ and http://www.moondragon.org/. It is also available on amazon.com, but when you order from the sisterzeus or moondragon, they get a small commission that helps them to exist. They're very worthwhile websites.

I would like to hear your comments, especially about the herbal information. And please forward this information to anyone you think might be interested.

NATURAL LIBERTY, Rediscovering Self-Induced Abortion Methods, written and published by Sagefemme Collective, 2008

e-mail: sagefemme.collective@gmail.com

website: http://www.sagefemmetoday.com/

Self-Help Clinic (May 31, 2009)

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:32:00 +0000

Please post your comments on my blog

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Sat, 31 May 2008 00:25:00 +0000

I received several messages on my e-mail (cdowner@sbcglobal.net), most were in disagreement with my position that mothers' rights are a feminist issue, and that even though the FLDS mothers are not raising their children in a way that I agree with, I opposed the State of Texas seizing the children. Unfortunately, these opinions were not posted on my blog, so only I was able to see them. I am not going to copy them without the writers' permission and I am not going to try to represent their points of view. I think this question hits right at the heart of women's rights, and we should discuss it from all our points of view. Please post your comments on the blog. Thanks

Legal Rights of Mothers

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Sat, 24 May 2008 03:27:00 +0000

Is it a feminist victory for the Court to make the State of Texas return the children to their FLDS mothers (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) in Texas? I believe it definitely is. We mothers are under siege by the patriarchal state from the very moment we give birth. We are given no help in raising our children, and the state is ready to jump in and take them away if we don't jump through hoops. When my children were young, I was very aware that I could lose custody of my children very easily.

Isn't it ironic, though, that our victory comes in a situation where the mothers in question, so strong in their fight to regain custody of their children, are so weak in their relationship to their children's fathers and to the men who dominate their sect? The state moved in and yanked those kids out of their homes without having established that they were in any harm, but it seems that the mothers support beliefs of women's subservience to men and do not insist that their daughters have full opportunity to education and other opportunities.

This poses a serious question for feminists. We want to support women to have the power to raise their children in the way they think best, but how do we work to create a society in which each woman asserts that power independently, without coercion. I saw an interview of a FLDS woman and her husband. Her husband sat quietly throughout the interview. She was articulate and forceful, but I wonder how forceful she is in demanding respect in her own relationship and in demanding respect for her daughters by the ruling males in their sect.

In the meantime, for every woman whose had her children taken away because she couldn't support them or take proper care of them or because the state wouldn't help her with her problems in a non-punitive way, I am very glad those children are going home to Mom.

Questions re Obama/Clinton race for nomination for President

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:11:00 +0000

Question #1: Why don't Obama supporters get really angry about the blatant sexism that is being shown by the media or even seem to see it, and why don't Clinton supporters get really angry about the racism being shown by the media or even seem to see it?

Question 2: Obama's speech on racism was an historic speech. Why do Clinton supporters not acknowledge that?

Question 3: Why can't Obama supporters see that the attempt to minimize Clinton's political experience while being married to a governor and then a president is outrageously sexist? Some have even called it "pillow talk", a term that trivializes the real value of the contribution that women make to their husband's career.

Question 4: One radio commentator who is an Obama supporter said she was "surprised" at the tremendous surge of support for Obama, especially among white men? Does she think white men have suddenly lost their racist thinking? Doesn't this alert her that something fishy is going on?

Question 5: Why doesn't Clinton give support to Obama's membership in a church with an outspoken black minister, instead of saying that she doesn't belong to a church with such a controversial minister? Of course, as a Democrat, she doesn't. Only extreme right-wing churches have racist, sexist ministers. Ministers of mainstream white Christian churches are not challenging the status quo (shame on them!)

Question 6: Why doesn't Obama publically deplore hecklers who tell Clinton, "Iron my shirt, bitch!"

Question 7: As a woman, I am thrilled that a qualified, gutsy woman is running for president, even if I do not agree with her foreign policy positions (as I don't agree with Obama's). Of course, people of color are thrilled that a qualified, gutsy person of color is running for president. But, aren't all progressive people really happy that both a person of color and a woman are contending for the Democratic nomination? What is it with this pressure on Clinton to give up?

I voted for Clinton, and I hope she gets the nomination, but I will vigorously support Obama if he gets the nomination. If I see a black person elected president of this country, I will dance in the streets with joy!

Let's hear it for Hilary and Barak.

Feminist advice on a relationship dilemma

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:26:00 +0000

I recently had the opportunity to visit with my friend, Varda, for a few days. We were able to "catch up" after almost 20 years of infrequent phone calls and correspondence. Piece by piece, Varda shared how her 2 marriages had ended in divorce and how she's agonizing over what to do about her relationship with the man that she's been living with, on and off, for the last 5 years.

Also, like many women in her age group (she's now in her mid-fifties and her two children from the first marriage are grown), she's finding herself without decent employment. She went back to school to become a social worker and earned a good living for a time, but then a large medical corporation came in and took over the small non-profit that contracted out the county's social work. Now she works at a Home for the mentally challenged in a non-rewarding capacity and for much less pay. In addition to her reduced circumstances, she is also facing problems with the I.R.S. On the advice of her first ex, she withheld part of her taxes to protest the war; he didn't advise her on what to do when they came after her. And, she has borrowed on her credit cards to the hilt, and she now faces the loss of her house. She's considering taking the last of a small inheritance to go back to school or going to live with her daughter and starting all over.

I forgot to say that Varda is an extremely talented artist, who has created beautiful art.. She helped to found the women's self-help movement in the 70's, and organized many fabulous events. She is beautiful in both body and spirit. She's idealistic and generous; "she'd give you the shirt off her back" applies to Varda.

I proceeded to give Varda, free of charge, the advice that I've given to many women over the years who've faced similar dilemmas about how to handle a relationship with a man they're living with and don't know just what to do next. The ones who have followed this advice, I'm happy to say, have experienced great success.

Varda asked me to write up the advice that I gave to her piecemeal over a period of days, because she wants to study it and fully understand it. She has given permission for me to publish it. I don't know if she will end up taking it, because this advice requires her to think about relationships with men in a whole new way.

The Problem

First of all, I think that Varda is on the verge of a serious financial crisis. She's about to end up in debt to the IRS, which is the worst kind of debt to have. She needs to take immediate action to get someone to represent her with the IRS (this does not have to be an attorney). Secondly, she needs money to keep her house. (Since her kids grew up, she's had a succession of housemates with all the problems that go with that).

WHAT DOES VARDA NEED TO DO?

I asked Varda, "What about your manfriend? Can't he help". "If we lived together again, he could take care of the mortgage and help with the IRS problem, but he doesn't just want to give me the money. He says it would be charity."

Varda told me her friend, Reggie, has the money. He has a good job, his own house and he takes her out to nice places.

To me, the solution is obvious. If Reggie meets what I consider to be the feminist criteria, they should get married.

I start off with the proposition that we live in a patriarchy, where, in general, men make more money than women and have more economic stability. Obviously, Varda prefers to have male companionship. After one to five years of living together, it becomes extremely disadvantageous for a woman to live with a man. Marriage laws, as restrictive and weighted in favor of men as they are, do give women some measure of security, compared to just living together. After investing a few years into her relationship with a man, a woman need to insist that they get married, or he must free her up to find someone else or she can pursue her goals alone.

I asked Varda a series of questions which I think are the basic questions to ask oneself before considering marriage.

1) Do you have a basically good sex life? Obviously, we all have a different idea of what constitutes a good sex life. The point is that both partners should have similar ideas. But, life is too hard and the stresses of everyday living with someone are too great unless you have the comfort and escape of affection, hugs, kisses and for some of us, deep and frequent orgasms.

Varda felt good about this aspect of their relationship. So, onto the next question.

2) Does he work? This used to be an unnecessary question. Before the 60's generation, a woman wouldn't consider having a relationship with a man that didn't work. It was a no-brainer. Increasingly, women get involved with men who don't work (Note: I did not say that the man needed to earn a lot of money. Lots of nice men are poor). Some women think they have more power in the relationship when they're the breadwinner; they think they can boss the guy around. In my opinion, they have the worst of all worlds.

Varda tells me that he likes his work and that he makes good money. Next question.

3) Does he have any serious personal problems, such as addictive behavior, gambling, violence or abusiveness? If a guy has any of these problems, they will only get worse with marriage.

Varda said that Reggie had none of these problems.

MY CONCLUSION: REGGIE MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A GOOD HUSBAND

But, Varda then explains that Reggie and her kids do not get along, and she's constantly in between and she's afraid that he will not allow her to have the kids in her life. When she met Reggie, her kids were teenagers and they took an instant dislike to him and vice versa. Even now, the main problem is that Reggie wants Varda's exclusive attention and complains bitterly and loudly when she divides her attention between him and her children.

NEXT PART OF THE ADVICE: YOU NEED TO ASSERT YOURSELF IN YOUR MARRIAGE ON A DAILY BASIS TO GET YOUR RIGHTS AND NEEDS TAKEN CARE OF

Up to this point, most women would agree with my advice, at least as far as what are the criteria for a good marriage prospect. But, many do not. To them, Varda should move on until she finds a man who respects her right to give some of her attention to her kids (and soon, grandkids).

I think that here is where I think that many women fail to grasp the essence of male-female relationships in our present-day patriarchal society.

Today, the realistic goal of a male-female relationship is physical closeness and pleasure, raising of children, if wanted or necessary, mutual economic support, and companionship.

Many women are seeking a relationship with a man that includes intimacy and romance, maybe even shared interests; these women are doomed to frustration and disappointment. Why? Because, in a patriarchy, men are not raised to experience intimacy in a love relationship; they're raised to dominate. There are a few exceptions, to be sure, and most men can and do have sincere feelings for their mates, but in general, it's women who are raised to be in touch with their feelings.

Note: A good pop psychology book is "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." The author, Gray, describes male-female relationships in a patriarchy pretty accurately. His whole message to women is to accept men as being unwilling and/or unable to invest the same emotional intensity into a relationship, and to find their fulfillment elsewhere. I thinks he gives good advice. Ironically, some women consider themselves to be a feminist and still expect a man to meet all their emotional needs; in fact, many of them consider this to be what a strong woman demands and gets from her relationship with a man.

My advice to Varda was, "Get married, get some financial security and deal with the problem of his possessiveness on a daily basis. It will never be easy. You will need to assert yourself, and work out compromises on a case-by-case basis. You won't get everything you want, but remember, he needs you as much as you need him."

The next day, we resumed our discussion. Varda said, "Yeah, I get it. All I have to do is to give into him and let him have his way, and we'll get along fine."

I realized that Varda hadn't heard a word I said about how a heterosexual feminist copes with pre-revolutionary relationships. Or, she had heard, and the prospect of living in a marriage under patriarchy didn't sound that great. Well, it isn't, folks, that's one of the reasons we want to overthrow the patriarchy. When men are in charge and get most or all of the goodies in the society, it's an unfair situation. To think that under these conditions, a man and a woman can have an idyllic relationship is (I can't fill in the word here; it's too sarcastic).

Personal note: when I became a feminist, I realized that probably I could have had a satisfactory life with my first husband. He was a decent guy and he was on the brink of making pretty good money (he died a few years after our divorce). We both loved our kids and we enjoyed working together. If I hadn't believed that my ultimate happiness depended on our having the perfect relationship and if I hadn't been unwilling to go out and create my own happiness, I probably could have managed his tendency to drink too much on social occasions and his carelessness about his health. My marriage counselor did try to give this advice to me. However, I did divorce and remarry, and I had a much better love life with my new spouse who I've been married to for over 45 years, so I guess it all was for the best.

Varda didn't say this, but my guess is that she also wonders if Reggie would, in fact, agree to get married? Perhaps this lack of confidence is undermining her ability to assert herself with him. My guess is that he would be willing. Otherwise, why is he saying that he won't give her the money unless they live together if he doesn't want to have her companionship?

While I'm on the subject of whether men want marriage, I am of the belief that they desperately want it. They devised the institution, didn't they? It protects their interests. They just want it on their terms. As a feminist, I eschew manipulation and scheming, a la "I Love Lucy", but I didn't park my brains when I became a radical feminist either. I have attempted, and I encourage women, to be a step ahead of the men we relate to at all times. I believe it's up to us to pick who we want to marry and then help them to go through the emotional growth that will lead to a lasting relationship.

Will Varda take this advice. I hope so.

When I mentioned my talk with Varda to one of the women I gave sisterly advice which she used to get herself established in a very good married relationship, she laughed and said, "Yes, my friends and co-workers just think I was really lucky to have found such a nice guy!"

City of Widows-book by Haifa Zangana

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:56:00 +0000

How to Fight the Patriarchy: Actively Oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan Occupations

The ongoing violence of the occupation is preventing the Iraq people from rebuilding their country, and the desperate and dangerous situation of the women, especially widows, is resulting in their needing to leave the public sector to seek security and sustenance from their families, their communities and their mosques. Also, the US administration allies with and gives power to sectarian groups, creating sectarian violence in a nation that has been secular and desires to remain free and secular.

This is the position of Haifa Zangana, author of City of Widows, an Iraqi Woman's Account of War and Resistance. Zangana will be speaking at the Hammer Museum in Westwood on April 2, 2008 at 7 p.m. Her book will be available after the program, or order online http://www.sevenstories.com/book/?GCO1=58322100075330

You may ask, "How will actively opposing the imperialistic policies of the US fighting the patriarchy, and which patriarchy are you referring to--the male leaders of the different sects of the Islamic religion or the male leaders in this US? Who says our society is a patriarchy?

Our society is a patriarchy and I am referring to both the Iraqi patriarchy and the US patriarchy. Gerda Lerner, in Creation of the Patriarchy, defines patriarchy thusly: the wider definition of patriarchy means the manifestation and the institutionalization of male dominance over women in society in general.

As a humanist, I have always been against the Iraq war, because it is unjust and destructive. I was against the war in Afghanistan also. I have demonstrated against both, and I have attempted to use my vote to prevent or end these wars and occupations. But, I have come to realize that, as a feminist, I have to do more. The same guys that are plundering Iraq of their resources are the ones attacking women's rights in our country. Above and beyond opposing the atrocities, I can see that this occupation is undercutting the progress that Iraqi women have made in the last century. For example, they organized U.S. citizen Iraqi women to beat the drums for the Iraqi invasion, and the Independent Women's Forum, a right-wing American (Lynne Cheney's group) group was funded to give lectures on "Democracy" to Iraqi women. Also, there's dozens of USAID-funded so-called women's NGO's (UN affiliated Non Governmental Organizations) over there to push U.S. goals along with a few hand-outs.

We cannot work on our feminist projects here in the United States as though we're in a bubble. While we're busy accomplishing this or that reform, our leaders are lowering our status worldwide. The media has not made this connection. MADRE has put out an excellent report, Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy, Yifat Susskind, 2007. This report is available by mail by calling or e-mailing Nancy Khweiss at (212)627-0444 or nancy@madre.org or or she will send it to you online at http://www.iraqreport.pdf/.

Zangana educated me about the history of Iraqi women and their current situation. She helped me to put the custom of wearing a veil in the context that Iraqi women see it. I would love to have discussions of those of you who read this book about what you think about women wearing the abaya, the cloak that covers the entire woman's body. I think reading Zangana's book will enable you to see past the media's spin on this situation as it did me, and then I'd like to hear from you.

Notice to those on my Address List

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:11:00 +0000

Sometimes I send out essays or letters to those on my Address List that I think will be interested in that particular information or piece. Now that I have a blog, I am going to place these items on my blog, because I do not want to constantly clog up my friends' inboxes, or guess whether they would be interested in what I'm sending them. I do not want my friends to think that being on my e-mail list means that they will be subjected to unsolicited stuff. I hope that what I put on my blog will be of sufficient interest to others that they will visit my blog to read the latest entry. And I especially hope that they will post their own comments so that we can get a discussion of sorts going.

Silda standing beside her husband while he apologizes

cdowner@sbcglobal.net (Carol Downer) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:39:00 +0000

The image of Silda Spitzer standing stone-faced and inexpressibly sad by her husband as he admits to the world that he patronized prostitutes and apologizes for his behavior should be put in a time capsule so that women from the far future can see twenty-first century subjugation of women in the United States (as well as the rest of the world). Here, an educated woman of high social standing faces pity and contempt.

My heart ached for Silda. I understood why she humbled herself before the merciless glare of the TV cameras. For each of us who live in a patriarchal society, the forces that cause our degradation are different, depending on a myriad of factors, and the form of that degradation is accordingly different, but ultimately, each of us, usually privately but sometimes very publicly, has to yield to these pressures.

Some women have foolishly and unimaginatively condemned Silva. "How could she allow herself to be humiliated?" Others have called it "phony" and "awful". They confuse the particular circumstances of Silva's humiliation-she being a politician's wife and no doubt part of the whole phony political scene-with the universality of her situation. Until we realize how circumscribed our lives really are and how each woman is doing what she needs to do to survive in a world that we women didn't make, we are destined to be manipulable, arrogant, and alienated from each other.

Some condemn her as a sell-out because she quit her lawyer job to advance her husband's career. Had she asked my advice in advance of doing this, I might have counseled her as to the risk she was taking, and maybe I would have lacked empathy for a woman making that choice, but in the final analysis, I really know that she had no choice, and my utmost sympathy goes out to her.