Why Religious Feminists Should Support Contraceptive Rights - Part 2

For my thoughts on why contraceptive rights support the religious liberty of individuals, see part 1 of this discussion.

Laws that require insurance companies to cover medical requirements, without regard to religious objections, are not the fundamental shift in policy that some political pundits have suggested them to be.

I realize that some readers will say health care is an area of the workplace that is optional, or that the government shouldn’t be meddling in health insurance provided through or in affiliation with an institution. But consider government regulations on other health-related aspects of the workplace. There are requirements in place in regard to lunch breaks, air quality, working space – almost any physical aspect of a workplace you can think of, there’s some sort of government regulation in place. Why these regulations? Why not just let the free market decide? Because, as history has shown, the free market favors those in power. If it’s cheaper to replace a worker than to protect that worker’s life, employers have historically been known to take the financial root over the moral one. And I don’t think very many people are going to argue with me on the point that we need at least some regulation on safety in the workplace (such as not keeping a child in front of a dangerous machine for 12 hours in a row). So it’s not a new thing for the government to regulate workplace health conditions.

Should employers cover women's health? Photo from feminist.org

But health insurance is complicated – I will give you that. We’re talking about a service provided through the employer (or university), but provided by a third party organization. For many Americans, health insurance companies seem like any other company in the US – and as such something that should be left to the supply-and-demand of the market. But most Americans with that view seem to have secure access to health insurance through an employer. Let me tell you how things changed for me when I lost my health insurance coverage a few months ago (insurance I only kept that long thanks to Obama’s health care bill, which allowed me to keep my mother’s insurance until I turned 26).

When I began looking for health insurance, I discovered that as a private health care seeker, I had no bargaining rights. I couldn’t bargain for a low price by dangling the promise of thousands of customers. I only had myself. And what did the insurance companies want from me? A sure – or nearly sure – gamble. They wanted to do everything they could to discourage me from ever using their money. So, I faced dim prospects. Every plan I viewed included a deductible (ranging from 1k to 10k), and even the plans that provided the most coverage would only help me after I first spent a few thousand dollars on my own – then, and only then, the insurance plans would cover a portion of my additional medical costs. Yes, that would happen quickly if I became deathly ill.

But for someone who just wants preventative care, it would do nothing. A rather silly gamble, if you ask me, since preventative care can save long-term costs for insurance companies. But my point is this – health insurance is so integrally tied to employers, that it’s not even feasible for private buyers to get it on their own, or to cover medical expenses out of pocket. The current system relies on a form of collective bargaining that individuals simply don’t have. So it’s not acceptable to tell women who actually have insurance that they’ll simply have to look elsewhere for any medicine their employer doesn’t condone.

Which brings us to the problem of who’s footing the bill. As you’ll recall, the bill still doesn’t require churches to cover contraceptives through their insurance – there’s already an exemption built in for the religious organization itself. It’s the affiliated organizations (such as hospitals and universities) that really set off the debate. In an attempt to compromise, Obama shifted the responsibility of covering the expense over to the insurance company.

Now, if you’re anything like me, you were probably a tad troubled by the thought of the government requiring the insurance company to pay for contraceptives on their own, instead of building the price into the premium. But here’s why I’m okay with that requirement: the insurance companies will save money because contraceptives provide preventative care for a number of medical conditions. In fact, I think that requirement provides insurance companies with more freedom. Without that mandate, insurance companies would have to agree not to cover contraceptives in order to win the bid for business through the religiously-affiliated employer. Even if they wanted to cover it, there’d be no other way to get business from that institution. As long as insurance companies have the option of dropping medically necessary care on an employer’s moral grounds, they must capitulate in order to win that employer.

Add in the fact that some institutions don’t even subsidize the health insurance they want moral control over, and the question of who’s footing the bill becomes even more relevant – as Sandra Fluke argues (see video above), shouldn’t women who are paying for unsubsidized healthcare have a say in what the insurance company covers? When their doctor prescribes medically necessary care, shouldn’t that take precedence over an affiliated institution’s differing belief system? Shouldn’t these women and their doctors have more say than the associated organization that isn’t even paying a dime toward that insurance?

It Gets Better at Brigham Young University

This perspective needs to be heard.

We're Awesome

So it sort of feels like the world has exploded into an “I hate women” kind of atmosphere and it’s been dragging me down a bit lately. I mean, every time I do my morning Internet sweep I get a bit angry and depressed about the possibilities for my future as some sort of sexual-temptation machine (how dare I have a body that has curves and the ability to bear children).

Anyway, it felt like it was time for a bit of positive thinking.

It’s incredibly important for feminists to continue moving forward, to remember that we can make changes, that there are amazing women out there, and that women are influencing and helping to create a better world everyday.

So today, in light of that message, I’d like to give a little shout out to some of the female role models that are out there today and to some of the good things that have emerged from the feminist movement.

Cool lady number one is of course, Burmese politician, Aung San Suu Kyi. This incredible woman has proven her steadfast commitment to the ideals of freedom and democracy again and again, even going so far as to endure house arrest for years just for speaking out against her government.

In case you’re not completely familiar with the facts of her life, Aung San Suu Kyi was born to a powerful politician and was lucky and smart enough to receive an incredible world-class education, even obtaining a Ph.D in Oriental and African Studies. She returned to Burma and began to lead the pro-democracy movement, an action that led to her house arrest and her separation from her children and ailing husband.

Now, the Burmese government offered her the choice of leaving Burma or staying, but only under house arrest. Concerned that if she left she would never be allowed to return, this formidable woman chose to stay in her country despite the fact that she spent fifteen of the next twenty-one years under house arrest and even served jail time.

Throughout this whole debacle, Aung San Suu Kyi was an outposken campaigner for the ideals of democracy, believing in non-violent protest and speaking out against the fight for power that mars the face of political elections.

So internet, where’s the tumblr meme website for this incredible woman?

The Hollywood voice: So usually we all hate on Hollywood. A lot of the things produced by that institution/plastic-surgery-fueled-town are sexist and well, annoying (yeah, I’m looking at you, Michael Bay), however there are still good things and cool people working their magic over there.

For one, the unexpectedly cool Fran Drescher; Yeah, I know what you’re thinking, “The Nanny?” Really?

Really. Despite the high-pitched voice Ms. Drescher is what I would consider a strong, independent woman, who’s been able to not only make it in a male-dominated industry, but also participate in female-centered activitism. She’s a respected comedian, well-known producer, director and writer (even doing a stint on Saturday Night Live back in the day).

But what really makes her a person of interest for me is her support of LGBT issues (especially after her husband came out to her after almost twenty years of marriage; the two divorced, but have remained close friends and business partners) and her campaigns for women’s healthcare. She survived uterine cancer and has created non-profit organizations and charities to help spread awareness and relief for uterine cancer. In 2008 she even became a U.S. diplomat for Women’s Health issues and currently travels around the world to work with women’s health organizations. Don’t believe me? Feel free to check out the numerous awards that she’s received internationally in behalf of her thoughtful work towards women.

However, that’s not the only reason that I believe Ms. Drescher is someone to be admired, in 1985 two men broke into her home, assaulted her husband and then raped both her and another friend staying with them. Despite this horrific event, she was able to overcome the assault and is now actively campaigning for the safety and well-being of other women.

Rock-on sister.

The last little bit of good news I want to share with you today before I head off in search of vegetable-based food is to showcase the ideological changes finally starting to happen in our society.

For years we’ve told our young men that they’re not really romantic; instead, we’ve told them that the only thing they love is sex. It’s a flawed gender lie that we’ve been spreading for years and it did true harm to our young men. Society told them that they were weak and overly emotional if they fell in love; it told them that as a man they were purely physical creatures, driven by lust and testosterone. Was it any wonder then that the young men of America decided that they should behave that way?

Well finally, we’re starting to see things differently. The ages for a young man’s first sexual experience have risen by 3-4 years on average over the past twenty years; instead of “losing their virginity” at the age of 15, more young men are waiting until they leave high school and find someone that they truly love to share the experience.

I love this. Love is not only for women, teenage boys can feel it too and I think it’s fabulous that it’s becoming more and more acceptable for a boy to acknowledge his feelings of love and respect for the girls he’s intimate with.

So you see world, we are making progress; your bigoted attempts to return us to antiquated ideologies about gender just aren’t going to fly anymore. That’s right world, we have your number and we’re going to continue to feed our social angst until we reach that ultimate goal: equality.

What are some of the good people and things to emerge from the feminist movement that fill you with hope for our future?

In the News

This week's "In the News" segment is going to be blissfully brief, as it's Good Friday and a lot of my energy is going towards celebrating the culmination of the Lenten season. When I say "brief," I mean it: I have a grand total of three (!) links for you all today. It's not that there isn't more to go on- every time I open up the Daily Mail's homepage and see their "Femail" column I throw up a little inside- but I don't want to make today a froth-at-the-mouth day.

The first link today is a BBC feature on an Afghan practice known as Bacha Posh, wherein parents disguise their daughter as a son when she's in public so she can work and have access to education. It's apparently not uncommon, and as with all adaptations to inequality, some of the daughters find it empowering and others feel robbed of their identities. I feel that the human rights aspect of the piece is a bit skewed- it's gender, not access- but it does highlight the fact that sex-based inequality continues to be a significant problem in Afghanistan. The whole cultural acceptance of the practice is even more fascinating to me in that light.

The second link today, also from the BBC, is a feature on a woman whose daughter was kidnapped and trafficked into sex work ten years ago in Argentina. Susana Trimarco, the mother, has been fighting human trafficking- often at risk to her own life- ever since. She is credited with finding the information needed to prosecute dozens of traffickers and rescue 129 trafficking victims, and she has started a foundation to respond to trafficking throughout Argentina. Wow. A round of applause, folks.

Our final link comes in light of the controversy over Sandra Fluke's Congressional testimony on contraceptive costs, and it's a link to individual cis women's testimonies about their experiences with hormonal contraceptive costs. I think it's a particularly good thing to think about in light of the tone of public debate over contraceptive coverage, and I also recommend looking at Emily's post from Friday.

That's all, folks!

Guest Post: Sofia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette" Surprisingly Feminist

This guest post, written by Megan "The Opinioness" Kearns, comes to us from Bitch Flicks and was posted on the site on 27 March 2012. The article appears here with permission from the author.

Kirsten Dunst in Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette

Many chastised Sofia Coppola’s re-imagining of Marie Antoinette. Some critics complained about the addition of modern music while others thought it looked too slick, like an MTV music video (remember those??). But I think most people missed the point. Beyond the confectionary colors, gorgeous shots of lavish costumes and a teen queen munching on decadent treats and sipping champagne is a compelling and heartbreaking film that transcends eye candy. Underneath the exquisite atmosphere exists a very powerful and feminist commentary on gender and women.

Marie Antoinette chronicles the life of Austrian-born Maria Antonia Josephina Joanna (Kirsten Dunst) as she becomes the Dauphine and then Queen of France leading up to the French Revolution. Writer and director Sofia Coppola loosely based the film on Antonia Fraser’s sympathetic biography of the French queen. Coppola injected the dialogue with actual quotes from the queen’s life. Dunst skillfully exhibits the queen’s naïveté, loneliness and charisma. In an outstanding and underrated performance, she adeptly captures the jubilance of a young woman who desperately desires freedom as well as a woman burdened with the knowledge that her only value lies in her ability to bear children.

In the beginning of the film, we see Marie Antoinette travel from her homeland of Austria to France as her mother has arranged for her to be married to the Dauphin, Louis XVI (Jason Schwartzman) in order to unite the two antagonistic kingdoms of Austria and France. In a heartbreaking scene, Judy Dench tells Marie Antoinette she must leave everything she knows behind to make room for her new French identity, including abandoning her adorbs dog Mops. No, not her dog! That scene seriously broke my heart reducing me to tears. Marie Antoinette is upset yet she swallows her pain and obeys. She enters a tent placed on the two countries’ borders, entering on Austrian soil and exiting on French land. In the tent, she must strip off all of her clothes in order to don her new French garb – a symbol of her having to strip away her identity.

Once Marie Antoinette marries Louis XVI, we see Versailles' ridiculous and over the top traditions again and again. Every morning, an entourage of servants and royalty awakens Marie Antoinette, dressing her in garments with outlandish pomp and ceremony.

As she navigates royal society's mores, we witness Marie Antoinette’s close friendships with the free spirited Duchesse de Polignac (Rose Byrne) and the reserved Princesse de Lamballe (Mary Nighy). When she is told she should choose more appropriate friends, particularly ditching Duchesse de Polignac, Marie Antoinette defends her friend saying she enjoys her fun spirit. Yes, there are moments when Marie Antoinette indulges in vapid, decadent luxuries. But people forget she’s a teenager. Um, that’s what they do! To take her mind off the constant societal pressure, she distracts herself by gambling, singing in plays and shopping. She’s so confined by societal expectations; she’s exploring her identity and experimenting as much as she can.

Marie Antoinette’s mother, the Austrian duchess Maria Theresa warns her, “All eyes will be on you.” After their wedding night, it’s clear that Louis XVI has no sexual interest in his bride. Through her constant letters, Maria Theresa perpetually reminds her daughter that “nothing is certain” about her place until she gives birth to a son. Even after Louis XVI is crowned king and Marie Antoinette becomes queen, her place is still not entirely secure until she has a son. After her sister-in-law gives birth to a son, Marie-Antoinette feels even more pressure to have a child. Her mother condemns her for not being charming enough or patient enough to entice her husband. As Marie Antoinette reads her mother's letter, the stinging words wound her, we see and feel her solitary pain.

Women were reduced to their vaginas, only valued if they got pregnant so they could produce an heir. No one bothers Louis XVI about this, even though he’s the one who doesn’t want to have sex. Nope, just the woman; of course she’s to blame. Eventually after 7 years with no children, Marie Antoinette's brother, the Holy Roman Emperor, talks to him. But Marie Antoinette is repeatedly blamed for not becoming pregnant. Clearly her body and reproduction are her only salient attributes in the eyes of society.

Throughout the film, we’re reminded that women aren’t desirable, lesser than men. When her first child a daughter is born, Marie Antoinette says to her:

“Oh, you were not what was desired, but that makes you no less dear to me. A boy would have been the Son of France, but you, Marie Thérèse, shall be mine.”

In a world where nothing, not even her own body truly belongs to her, it's touching to see Marie Antoinette, a devoted mother, take such joy in her relationship with her daughter.

Throughout history, people erroneously vilified Marie Antoinette, attributing her with more political influence than she actually possessed. And of course she was demonized after she supposedly told starving peasants, "Let them eat cake.” As civil unrest grows inching ever closer to revolution, the film's Marie Antoinette says she would never say such a thing. Because of her Austrian heritage and I would also argue her gender, Marie Antoinette was repeatedly used as a scapegoat for France’s financial woes and the public’s strife.

The film divided audiences. At the Cannes Film Festival, critics notoriously booed yet it also received a standing ovation. Some critics dismissed it, saying it was nothing more than a pop video or that “all we learn about Marie Antoinette is her love for Laduree macaroons and Manolo Blahnik shoes.” Sofia Coppola, who consciously chose to omit politics from the film, fully acknowledged Marie Antoinette was not a typical historical biopic:

“It is not a lesson of history, it’s an interpretation carried by my desire for covering the subject differently.

Would people still complain and moan if a dude was at the center of the film or a dude had directed this?? Nope, I think not. Does anyone else remember that Mozart acts like an immature douchebag in the critically acclaimed Amadeus??

But some delved deeper, understanding its rare beauty. Critic Roger Ebert praised Marie Antoinette astutely pointing out:

“This is Sofia Coppola's third film centering on the loneliness of being female and surrounded by a world that knows how to use you but not how to value and understand you.”

Told almost entirely from the Queen’s perspective, we see the world through Marie Antoinette's eyes. Her loneliness and the pressure she faces to be everything to everyone is palpable.

With its commentaries on gender, women’s agency, reproduction and female friendships, Marie Antoinette is surprisingly deeper and more feminist than many realize. Sofia Coppola created a lush and sumptuous indulgence for the eyes. More importantly, by humanizing the doomed queen and adding modern touches, Coppola reminds us of the gender constraints women throughout history and today continually endure.

Why Religious Feminists Should Support Contraceptive Rights - Part 1

This post will also appear in Go Girl Magazine on Friday, as well as Part 2, which will appear on Saturday.

If you’re like me, you probably feel like this national debate over contraceptives is some bizarre throwback to the dark ages (or, as Stephen Colbert put it – why not start protesting Elvis’s pelvis-thrusting influence on teens?). And if you’re like me, you’re probably sick of hearing about it. Heaven knows, I wish this debate would just go away and that states would stop passing laws that allow employers to pry into female employees’ medical records and sex lives.

But we can’t ignore this debate, because states are still passing misogynistic bills that violate women’s rights to health and privacy – and because they’re doing it in the name of religious liberty, I feel it’s only right for the religious feminists of the United States to speak up. Already fellow Go Girl Erica is promoting a knitted vagina movement - the idea being that male legislators will stay out of our vaginas if they receive a knitted vagina of their very own. As a Catholic feminist, Erica represents just one of many people who want religious liberty and women’s health – not second class citizenship for women, with religious tyranny for Christian fundamentalists. Think my rhetoric is hyperbolic? Well, feministe has a great run-down of some recent anti-women legislation, including Georgia's efforts at forcing women to deliver still-born babies (justified by comparing women to livestock), Tennessee's efforts at depriving doctors and patients of medical privacy, and a whole slew of states passing ultrasound laws.

As a Christian feminist, I too want to respond to these attacks on women's rights, but I’m coming from a different perspective than a lot of feminists. You see, I’m a tad old-fashioned when it comes to sexuality. I don’t believe anyone should engage in sexual relations before marriage (though I'm not about to judge if that's your decision), and I consider pornography to be universally damaging to all who view or participate in it. I don’t believe that abortion is a good thing – though I support a woman’s access to abortion, particularly during the first trimester and at any time when the pregnancy puts her at peril. I’ve held these relatively old-fashioned beliefs my entire life, and as a result of not being married, I’m a 26-year-old virgin. The most I’ve ever done with a boy is kiss. And that’s something I’m proud of, because it’s a result of my decision not to have sex outside of marriage.

And yet, despite those strong beliefs on my part, I want this anti-women’s-rights legislation to stop, and I want more women to actively oppose these measures. I mean, come on – we’re more than half the population. We have the voting clout to make a serious difference where this legislation is concerned. So let explain why contraceptive rights do not violate the rights of religious organizations.

First off, we have to step back and examine the rhetoric of “This isn’t about contraceptives; this is about religious freedom” and ask, religious freedom for whom? America has a long history of proclaiming the ideal of religious liberty, all while denying that liberty to others. From Puritans who burned “witches” and cast out any who belonged to other Christian sects, to Southern plantation owners who forced slaves to leave their religion in Africa, to nineteenth century Americans who tortured, robbed and eventually murdered the founder of my faith, to contemporary Americans who didn’t want a Muslim community center anywhere near ground zero - we don’t have a perfect track record in the area of religious liberty. Especially not when the religion in question is a minority, either in our community or in the nation at large.

And differing moral beliefs are at the center of this debate about contraceptives as a form of medicine. Differing beliefs about family planning are driving much of this debate, as well as differing beliefs about the place of sex in a person’s life. Take, for instance, Sandra Fluke’s testimony in support of contraceptives (see video above), in which Fluke proclaims that access to sex is a right. Fluke also outlines all the reasons why women may need the pill even if they’re not having sex, and I am aware that Fluke’s statement could be problematic out of context – after all, Fluke is likely to support that “right” only insofar as the sexual partner is willing. But I want to point to this assertion that sex is a right, because that view is rooted in belief. I can’t know whether that belief is rooted in a particular religion, but Fluke clearly believes that sexuality should be a personal decision, not one dictated by the government or by an employer or by an insurance agent who somehow thinks denying birth control is a good way to cut costs.

But Fluke isn’t alone in holding differing moral beliefs about sexuality. I, for one, believe that sex (between a married couple) is a sacred union that is about much, much more than having kids. And I believe that adults who are having sex have every right to take measures to prevent that sexual act from resulting in pregnancy. I also believe that kids should be born into homes where their parents welcome them as an addition to the home, and as someone who wants to cut down on the number of abortions that occur because of unplanned pregnancies, I think parents using contraceptives is a good decision for kids. And sure, you can make the argument that parents can simply abstain from sex during the woman’s most fertile times of the month – but a) that’s still a way to have sex without getting pregnant, b) that method is much less reliable, and c) it seems awfully cruel to women to say that we only get to have sex during the times of the month when we want it the least. Not to mention, how is it an employer’s business to dictate what times of the month a woman is allowed to have sex if she doesn’t want to get pregnant?

The fact of the matter is, allowing employers to determine - based on morality - what medical options (prescribed by a doctor) an insurance company is allowed to provide does not protect the religious liberty of the individual employee.

Saturday: more on why birth control rights do not violate economic or religious liberty.

Question of the Week: What Recent Event Bugs You The Most?

Ok, I'm thinking politics on this one, but any event will do. My idea is that it might be cathartic to vent a bit and just list off all the recent events that are bugging us. Or, at least the worst ones.

So, what recent (political) event has you incensed?