NWLSA

Feminism is Fiscally Conservative

/ Michelle Parker / Leave a comment

This may surprise some people, but for most it’s a no brainer: having a baby is more expensive than taking birth control. When you multiply those expenses nationally, these savings can be even more substantial. However, because rights to access birth control and contraception are constantly being challenged and eroded in some states, tax payers are paying the higher costs associated with unplanned pregnancies, rather than for preventative measures.

According to a new report compiled by Guttmacher, in 2008, 2 of 3 unplanned pregnancies resulted in births that were publicly funded, and the combined cost of all those births was $12.5 billion. Overall, more than half (65%) of births that were paid for by public insurance programs were the result of unplanned pregnancies. The study contends that this is the result of low access to birth control and abortion for poor women in states that spend a significant amount of money paying for prenatal, hospital, and post birth care for unplanned children.

Keep in mind that these costs do not take into account later, taxpayer-funded government care, like public school and food stamps.

The study also states that in the absence of the publicly funded family planning effort, the annual public costs of births from unintended pregnancy would have been twice as high — $25 BILLION.

As Erin Gloria Ryan from Jezebel adeptly points out, “the public must either bear the cost of preventing pregnancy, bear the cost of unplanned pregnancy, or allow poor women to bleed and die in the street. Which one is the most pro-life and fiscally conservative?”

When women want access to birth control and other medical services, it’s in the best interest of the country that they have that access. People, regardless of whether or not they can afford children, are going to have sex; and if a person doesn’t want a child, why make them have one? Therefore, a person who believes in freedom from government interference and fiscal responsibility then has the same goal as a feminist: allowing all women access to choice.

The study can be reviewed here: www.guttmacher.org/pubs/public-costs-of-UP.pdf

#FeminismIsForWhiteWomen?

/ Tonastacia Dennis / Leave a comment

The Oxford Dictionary defines feminism as “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” The definition is race-neutral, and yet a quick Google search of “feminism” led me down a rabbit’s hole of feminist ideologies — including traditional feminism and black feminism.

Too often, I sit in a room of self-proclaimed feminists, and it dawns on me that I am the only person of color in the room. For a long time, I wondered if my white friends noticed. My question was answered recently as our meeting came to a close.

“Did you notice how the room was full of white women?” my friend, a white woman, asked me anxiously. I nodded, scanning the room as it slowly emptied. We talked about ways to bring in more women and men of color, and the conversation drifted towards a recent trending hashtag on Twitter: #SolidarityisforWhiteWomen. The topic was born of Twitter drama, and provided a forum to discuss an old debate: whether feminism excludes the experiences and testimonies of women of color.

The Twitter drama began when writer Mikki Kendal responded to tweets posted by Hugo Schwyzer, who is an author, blogger, speaker and former college professor. In August, he admitted to targeting black feminists who “got in his way.”

Kendall complained about white feminists who “enabled” Schwyzer for years, instead of standing by the women of color targeted by him.  Interestingly, Schwyzer identifies as a male feminist and promotes inclusivity, saying “Feminism points out ways in which rigid gender roles don’t work out for men and women – particularly for women. But not by any means exclusively for women.”

The conflict between Kendall and Schwyzer sparked a social media debate, in which women of all shades questioned the inclusiveness of mainstream feminism.

Some people, including Schwyzer, complained that the thread was divisive. Others took the “fly-on-a-wall” approach, taking the opportunity to enter the minds of women of color.

And still others took the opportunity to engage in dialogue with other feminists. Women of all ethnicities jumped in the conversation and online writing communities called for testimonies from feminists of color.

For the past couple of years, students of color have made up about 20-25% of the student population at the College of Law, which suggests that meetings need not be so homogenous. An honest conversation about the dynamic between white feminists and feminists of color will help further our common mission of gender equality in all aspects of life. The conversation needs the voices of all women, regardless of color, class, creed, sexual orientation or identity. And yes, diversity encompasses more than racial diversity. Within any group of people are varying values, experiences, and ideas–race is simply one part of who we are.

I challenge you to discuss your differences, and stumble upon your similarities. #FeminismIsForAllOfUs