Discrimination against pregnant women

Even in elementary school, I was very aware of the discrimination that stopped women from preventing or ending their pregnancies. The abortion battles, the refusal to subsidize contraception or provide adequate sex education- these were (and are) all popular news topics. However, it was not until very recently that I became aware of the extent of the discrimination that faces women once they become pregnant.

Of course, I had heard bits and pieces, here and there. I knew that in the past women were fired for becoming pregnant and forced to sign contracts agreeing not to become pregnant in order to obtain loans. I knew that our society failed to provide poor, mostly non-white women with the resources to care for their fetuses and then stigmatized them when their babies were born with health problems.

However, I did not realize that pregnant women were actually thrown into jail because they struggled with addiction, refused cesareans, or simply didn’t get enough bed rest. I did not realize that pregnant women were forcibly dragged to the hospital, strapped down, and cut open.

Even if these measures genuinely improved maternal and fetal health, they would be appalling. The irony, however, is that these assaults on women's bodily integrity often do little to improve maternal and fetal health. Frequently, they worsen it.

While drug use is certainly not recommended during pregnancy, the negative effects are generally much less significant and much less certain than courts assume.

The infamous crack baby epidemic is a case in point. During the height of the crack baby hysteria, one judge compared smoking crack during pregnancy to "tak[ing] a pistol and put[ting] it in your mouth and blow[ing] your head off." (Which leads me to wonder- does he think pregnant women who attempt suicide should be thrown in jail, too?)

However, a New York Times article "The Epidemic That Wasn't" reveals that maternal crack cocaine use is comparable to maternal tobacco use, and quotes a federal maternal cocaine use researcher as saying “Are there differences [between cocaine-exposed babies and other babies]? Yes. Are they reliable and persistent? Yes. Are they big? No.”

Forcing women to have cesareans or hospital births or jailing women for refusing to do so is even more ridiculous, given that the rise in c-sections appears to have contributed to the recent rise in maternal mortality in the U.S.

Throwing pregnant women in prison for allegedly failing to care for their babies betrays not only a lack of respect for their bodily integrity and a failure to pay attention to the medical literature, but a profound lack of common sense.

Care for pregnant prisoners is frequently atrocious. Women are often denied care even when they show visible signs of distress, such as leaking amniotic fluid or bleeding from the vagina for days after being repeatedly punched in the stomach by fellow prisoners. Women who make it to labor sometimes end up giving birth in their cells because guards refuse to take them to the hospital until too late. Although activist groups have recently succeeded in reducing the shackling of non-violent women prisoners in the hospital as they give birth, shackles are still routinely used as guards transport women to and from the hospital in labor.

The punishment of pregnant women for allegedly not caring for their babies involves not just sexist ideas about women’s right to bodily integrity, but also sexist (and classist and racist) ideas about intelligence. The probably white, probably male, almost certainly upper class doctors and judges are assumed to be correct about what is healthiest for the mother and baby. The frequently non-white, frequently poor, always female mother is assumed to be wrong. (Of course, if it turns out the doctors and judges are wrong, the blame is quickly shifted to the women- see Miriam Pérez’s excellent article on so-called “voluntary” c-sections.)

I’ve always loved Marilyn Frye's birdcage metaphor and it’s very relevant in the context of reproductive rights. Fry explains that if you look at a single wire of a bird cage you cannot understand why the bird cannot just fly around it. It’s only when you step back and look at all the wires together that you see how they effectively trap the bird.

Restrictions on birth control and abortion must be understood in combination with discrimination, and both of them must also be understood in combination with rape, homophobia, pressure to have children, and problematic adoption practices. On their own, these things are painful enough, but together they combine to form a situation in which it’s difficult for women to avoid pregnancy and even more difficult for them to maintain their bodily integrity once they are pregnant.

20th century boy: glam rock's agenda to push gender boundaries

As an open-minded fan of rock music - especially unconventional rock - "glam rock" holds a special place for me, in part because of the genre's role in pushing conventional gender boundaries in pop culture. Wikipedia characterizes glam rock as music "which was performed by singers and musicians who wore outrageous clothes, makeup and hairstyles, particularly platform-soled boots and glitter." According to Allmusic, the actual music was straightforward and catchy, but its "innocent-sounding influences were belied by the delivery, which was all campy, glitzy showmanship and sexuality."

Allmusic argues that one of the primary reasons why glam rock remained a British phenomenon and never caught on in the United States is because "glam artists intentionally played around with gender conventions, dressing themselves up in outlandish, androgynous costumes and makeup." Most, if not all, of the early icons of glam rock flirted with this "gender-bending" imagery. Not only has this particular aspect of glam influenced the imagery of subsequent rock sub-genres, but it also illustrates the progressive capacity of pop culture.

One can likely trace the roots of glam rock to the 1960s experimental rock band the Velvet Underground (“VU”). Although VU predated the glam rock movement, their lyrics often dealt with sexually-provocative themes, thus setting the stage for glam rock's sexually-provocative visuals. The VU song "Sister Ray" concerns a "transvestite smack dealer” and a group of drag queens who shoot up heroin and have an orgy with a group of sailors when the police arrive.

According to Allmusic and Wikipedia, glam rock effectively started in 1971 with the band T. Rex, after founder Marc Bolan added two spots of glitter under his eyes for a performance on the U.K. show Tops of the Pops. Though VU and Bolan opened the door for experimentation with gender conventions, other glam rock icons would push that door wide open. For example, the cover art for David Bowie's album, The Man Who Sold the World, features Bowie in a "man's dress." He used this dress for his first tour of the United States, as well as for interviews. As his Martian alter-ego Ziggy Stardust, Bowie presented his sexual identity quite literally outside of human convention.

Vincent Damon Furnier toyed with androgyny on a very fundamental level through the name of his onstage persona - Alice Cooper. He also experimented with gender identity issues musically, especially on the song "Is It My Body?", "a witty and clever send of macho insecurity," in which the narrator inquires whether a suitor's interest is based solely on physical attraction. One band, the New York Dolls, had trouble securing a record label, in part, because of their cross-dressing habits. More so than any of the aforementioned musicians, the Dolls’ image was inextricably linked to their garish onstage outfits.

So what is the actual significance of glam rockers' experimentation with gender norms? On the one hand, one could view these actions as simply provocation in the name of rock. Alice Cooper and the New York Dolls in particular adhered to a “shock rock” philosophy – music calculated for maximum shock value. The underlying premise for this theory is that seeing adult men (most all of the early glam icons were men) transgressing gender roles and stereotypes would shock the average person. From the musician’s perspective, notoriety can prove just as useful as musical ability.

On the other hand, regardless of their actual intentions, glam rockers undeniably pushed the boundaries of rock music and left an indelible stamp on pop culture. First, they eschewed gender conventions and helped usher a new paradigm for the male rock star – the drug addled, sleazy, androgynous sex symbol. Second, glam rock helped legitimize androgynous imagery for subsequent rock sub-genres - including goth and punk - as well as for other musicians as diverse as Prince and Lady Gaga. Glam rock’s influence is also apparent in the world of cinema (the Rocky Horror Picture Show) and the world of theater (Hedwig and the Angry Inch).

In the end, the early glam icons probably were not looking for meaningful social change. However, the legacy of glam rock undeniably stems, in part, from its audacity to confront pop culture with basic gender conventions.

Below are a few videos that demonstrate the sonic range of glam rock, as well as how glam artists toyed with gender conventions.

The New York Dolls - Personality Crisis


David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust


Alice Cooper - Is It My Body?

One for All and All for One?

Since our class discussion of whether pushing the equality of men and women was a correct strategy, I have continued to ponder the wisdom of this route. Reflecting upon much of what we have discussed about women in the legal profession, I can barely imagine what it would have been like being a woman in any profession 40-50 years ago. Nonetheless while many things continue to stay the same, I also think we fail to sometimes see how far we have come.

A good example of this is found in the show Mad Men (which I truly love). Perhaps it is the clothes, the characters, or the dialogue; but for me, the real draw of the show is seeing how much has changed but also how much has stayed the same. It should come as no surprise that last weekend, as I sat on my couch with a glass of wine watching Peggy Olsen being degraded by her boss Don Draper, that I started yelling at the screen fuming that he dared to speak to a woman that way. What might surprise you, however, is that a few minutes later I cried as Peggy and Don, both individuals cornered into a box that barely contains them, found a mutual understanding in the innocuous gesture of holding each other’s hand after a long night of defeat.

The two characters have much to lose - one is a man who is pretending to be someone else, and the other is a woman trying to balance her femininity with a masculine career. But the commonality struck between the two of them in the final scene is perhaps indicative of what we seek as feminists– an understanding and way to have equal standing. Much has been said about what equality actually means, but in essence isn’t it something that requires mutual understanding?

My contention isn’t so much that things are perfect and that women are on an equal footing, but rather that putting down what we have achieved so far only limits the movement. The law is an gauge of how our society evolves, and in the case of gender equality, the mere fact that legislation like the Fair Housing Act or the Equal Pay Act exists serves as a reminder – whether prescient or not – that our society does value this type of equality. Moreover, if we didn’t have judges and lawyers – both women and men – deciding cases like Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, I believe that the Peggy Olsen of today would still be a secretary forced to listen to sexual insults without much choice. Denying the work that women like Ruth Bader Ginsburg did in the past de-legitimizes what equality women do have right now. To me, it fails to capture the many rights that I have today that people like Peggy Olsen did not.

Laws such as Civil Rights Act are pieces of paper, but they are pieces of paper with force that reflect this concept of mutual understanding. We might not yet have come to the point where there is absolute understanding (reflected in the fact that some court precedent does exist to deny our equality), but it is enough to demonstrate that men and women are on a more equal standing than any other time in our short history. Nevertheless, I maintain that this is not necessarily a time to rest, but since we are on a more equal footing a time to push for laws to intertwine with the societal value of equality in a more tangible way.

Mom was right... again.

As a woman, I've been fortunate in many ways. I was born at a point where I have benefited from the hard work of the women who pioneered the feminist movement. On a personal level, (most of) the men in my life have been nothing but supportive.

My pursuit of a stellar professional career was a given for my father. He would have it no other way. In fact, he still harbors delusions of my earning a Nobel prize or a Supreme Court appointment (no problem Dad)!

However.

I have had problems seeing eye to eye with certain guys on the issue of violence against women. One of the biggest fights I had with my first (ex) boyfriend was about my "paranoia" regarding walking alone in a dark parking structure, at night. I argued that this was anything but paranoia and being an adult male, he could not possibly understand concern about sexual assault. He (condescendingly) argued that we lived in a safe area and I was being ridiculous.

He was wrong.

A couple of years after this (infuriating) conversation, I was walking alone at night to meet up with a friend in the safe city of La Jolla. As I was walking across my apartment complex to meet up with her, a man came out of the shadows. He yelled, in a cold voice I will never forget, "what the hell are you doing?!" I took one look at his cruel, terrifying face and started to walk away. Quickly.

He followed me.

I yelled out to my friend and once I reached her, I was lucky that he stopped pursuing me. As we walked towards the main road, I looked back. He was just standing there. Staring at us.

Not a big incident, right? But I wonder what would have happened if I was alone. I had an instinctively terrible feeling the moment I made eye contact with him. I was shaken, but also angry. How dare he make me feel unsafe near my own home! I was sure that my instincts about him were correct. I decided to look him up.

California has passed laws (collectively called Megan's law) which require authorities to make information about registered sex offenders available to the public. I went online and found the website where you can find registered sex offenders in your neighborhood. With pictures.

Sure enough, in no time at all, I stared back at the face of the man who followed me (6ft, 200 lbs). Apparently one conviction for sexual assault was not enough.

That year, again in safe La Jolla, a woman was tackled between two cars and raped. By the library on campus. At 8pm. In summer when it was still light outside.

Nobody was around. So much for "safe" areas.

The point of my post is not to make women feel like victims, but to make them aware of what can happen even in places that are considered very safe. Don't let fear rule your life, but remember common sense (i.e. my mother's) advice:

• Be aware of your general surroundings at all times.
  
• Don't take a cab alone at night (if possible).
• Carry pepper spray.
• Avoid walking alone at night (unlike me).
• Don't give rides to strangers. Even well dressed/handsome ones (horrible case emailed curtesy of my mom).
• Watch out for your friends, especially at parties or clubs.

As for the ex-boyfriend... luckily now I met someone who buys me pepper spray on his own initiative (brownie points with mom too!), rather than talks down to me for worrying about my safety. It's not that I want men to be super protective, I just appreciate the fact that he takes my concerns seriously.

While Megan's law is a very helpful tool, I hope that the California legislation will continue to pass laws that combat violence against women. Even simple fixes such as more street light in cities (Davis!!) helps reduce this type of crime.

Hopefully with more education and better legislation, women will have less to worry about in the future.

A woman's worth: the long road toward equal pay for work of equal value

There has long been a worldwide effort to establish equal pay for comparable worth. While studying European Employment Law last semester in Dublin, Ireland, my eyes were opened to the fact that the European Community (EC) and countries like Australia have required both public and private employers to base salaries on equal pay for work of equal value. These requirements have been in place for almost two decades now. In a fact sheet on wages of various occupations published by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, new analysis shows that men out-earn women in nearly every occupation for which data are available.

As a woman who has been in the workforce for over 40 years, I have seen the incremental improvements in my wage gap, but I never stopped to calculate what that amounted to in real terms, until I dug a bit deeper into recent data and found some startling commentary.

Weary of the prospect of getting paid less than my male counterparts in the legal profession, I decided to evaluate the current state of equal pay for equal or comparable work. Many would argue that seniority, reduced hours for child care, and maternity leave account for the difference in pay that a man gets compared to a woman. But studies do not support this argument. The large wage gap between men and women is more likely due to significant differences between wages paid for traditionally "men's jobs" and those paid for "women's jobs." Comparable worth is a tool in the struggle to bring women's economic positions up to the level of men's.

In the United States however, comparable work policies have lagged seriously behind. Even though national conferences for mayors and governors have given a token nod toward women by passing resolutions supporting the notion of comparable worth, we have a long way to go sisters! Roughly 20 states have begun to make comparable-worth salary adjustments for their employees.

The gender wage gap and occupational segregation – men primarily working in occupations by other men, and women primarily working with other women – are persistent features of the US labor market. During 2009, median weekly earnings for female full-time workers were $657, compared with $819 per week for men, a gender wage ratio of 80.2 percent (or a gender wage gap of 19.8 percent). Women’s median earnings are lower than men’s in nearly all occupations, whether they work in occupations predominantly done by women, occupations predominantly done by men, or occupations with a more even mix of men and women.

Economist Evelyn Murphy, President of The Wage Project, estimated in an article that over a lifetime (47 years of full-time work) this gap amounts to a loss in wages for a woman of $700,000 for a high school graduate; $1.2 million for a college graduate and $2 million for a professional school graduate. (Source: Census Bureau reports and data, Current Population Reports, Median Earning of Workers 15 Years Old and Over by Work Experience and Sex. 
Updated September 2009)

In a briefing paper on the best and worst economies for women, The Institute for Women’s Policy Research states that,

While women's wages have risen in all states, in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, since 1989, the typical full-time woman worker does not make as much as the typical man in any state. At the present rate of progress, it will take 50 years to close the wage gap nationwide.

So, it has been more than depressing for me that not only will I not see the gap closed during my work life, but I might not see the gap closed in my lifetime. It’s not all bad news, though. One of the first bills that President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. See prior post. The Fair Pay Act takes effect retroactively, however, employers may still be slow to increase the salaries of female employees until the lawsuits begin to fly. This will take courage on the part of women, but the groundwork has been put in place.

There are also comparable-worth lessons we can learn from the successes of not only our foreign neighbors in Europe, but in the U.S. as well. I rarely think of Minnesota as a bell-weather state when it comes to public policy, but in the equal pay for work of equal value, they most certainly are. As early at the mid-90’s, it was the only state requiring all its localities to develop and implement a comparable-worth/pay equity plan for their employees. Over thirteen hundred local governmental bodies participated. See, Incomparable Worth by Steven E. Rhoads, Cambridge University Press 1993.

As the UC Davis Law class of 2011 graduates, each of us will embark on a new career as lawyers. Each of us, male and female, will have an opportunity to practice not only law, but also leadership. I believe that because of our training and understanding of the operation of government, lawyers should shoulder a greater responsibility than other citizens taking leadership roles in our respective communities. We will be the generation of leaders that makes the wage gap disappear.

Women Wednesdays

Going forward, every Wednesday I will put up a quote I believe to be powerful and relevant. Please feel free to comment and/or add your own quotes to add to "Women Wednesdays."

This week's quote is by Clare Boothe Luce (born Anne Booth) who was a politician and writer, and was known for her strong commitment to the advancement of women.

"Because I am a woman, I must make unusual efforts to succeed. If I fail, no one will say, 'She doesn't have what it takes.' They will say, 'Women don't have what it takes.'"