<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Amy Richards's blog</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/amy-richards"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/301/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/301/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2007-05-02T11:18:34-04:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Feminist Reflections on Motherhood</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/05/03/feminist-reflections-on-motherhood" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/05/03/feminist-reflections-on-motherhood</id>
    <published>2007-05-03T08:45:00-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-02T15:47:20-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Amy Richards</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Maternal Health" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <category term="Fem-MOM-ism" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>Amy reflects on her choice to have children, societal expectations and how feminism gets a bad rap when it comes to supporting procreation and motherhood. </p>      ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>I always knew I wanted kids. I never fantasized about my wedding day, but I knew I would be a mom&#8212;ideally through birthing my own baby, but adoption was also a consideration. Because I was raised by a single mother and never knew my father, my desire for kids wasn&#39;t contingent upon someone to have them with. </p>
<p>Once I started working as a &quot;professional feminist,&quot; I began to question my inclination toward having kids: was it a &quot;choice&quot; or a programmed response from my gendered conditioning? By the time I had kids, I was surrounded by many people who clearly made the choice to become parents, most pronounced among gay male couples adopting babies at birth. They certainly weren&#39;t following a biological dictate; though in most instances I witnessed, they were likely fulfilling society&#39;s expectation for middle class couples, even if those relationships were &quot;alternative.&quot;</p>
<p>When I started writing <em>Opting In: Having a Child without Losing Yourself</em>&#8212;a to-be-published book on motherhood&#39;s relationship to feminism&#8212;I prodded myself and others about why the majority of us want children and did this choice preclude us from truly being equal to men, as was hinted at in past generations. Most clarity came from those who didn&#39;t want to become parents&#8212;knowing that they were making different choices made my choice more likely to be truly my own. I think we often have to reject the assumptions or cast away &quot;natural&quot; choices&#8212;be it kids or make-up&#8212;and then re-choose what we want. That process of rejecting and challenging often exposed authenticity. </p>
<p>But, how did feminism get a bad rap when it came to supporting procreation and motherhood in the first place? Feminism&#39;s history is one of campaigning for alternatives to &quot;feminine&quot; expectations, which led many people to conclude that women&#39;s liberation was a marketing campaign against all things feminine. Saying that women should be free to romp around without getting knocked up got interpreted as women should never get knocked up. Of course, only certain women are &quot;allowed&quot; to be sexually liberated; black and Latina women who do so are labeled irresponsible and oversexed.  </p>
<p>The other confusion is that most people don&#39;t distinguish between <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/133"><acronym title="Reproductive Rights: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Reproductive Rights">reproductive rights</acronym></a>, which encompass mothering issues, and abortion rights.  At <a href="http://www.ppnyc.org/" rel="nofollow">Planned Parenthood New York City</a>, for instance, <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122"><acronym title="family planning: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for family planning">family planning</acronym></a> accounts for majority of their services (48%), while abortions account only for 21%. But the organization&#39;s more public persona as the face of the abortion rights movement leads people to believe that these experiences can&#39;t be mutually expressed. The &quot;pro-choice&quot; concern is that emphasizing motherhood will overshadow abortion, which is a more vulnerable right. And yet, being pregnant when you want to be <em>and</em> being able to terminate a pregnancy when you don&#39;t want to be can never be disentangled. And sometimes they are the same thing&#8212;for instance, when I &quot;selectively reduced&quot; from triplets to a one baby pregnancy.</p>
<p>But, even with this clarity, there are new things to wrangle me. For instance, why as a straight, middle-class person, don&#39;t I have to justify my parenting or explain what makes me a good parent? If you are straight and fertile, you don&#39;t have to argue your right to be a parent, but those who seek fertility help, pursue adoption, are single or in same-sex relationships have to detail what makes them suitable parents.  I&#39;m also challenged on my decision to have two children. Replacement value has long been an eco-friendly goal, but my children will devour more natural resources than children in under-developed countries, so shouldn&#39;t the United   States have a lower birth rate given our over-consumption? </p>
<p>And I&#39;m sure once I begin to gain perspective on these questions, new ones will arise. That&#39;s the natural feminist progression&#8212;once a problem is remedied or at least theorized, new ones emerge and what one generation fights so hard for, the next one takes for granted. </p>      ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Debating Women&#039;s Studies with Jennifer Roback Morse</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/03/30/debating-womens-studies-with-jennifer-roback-morse" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/03/30/debating-womens-studies-with-jennifer-roback-morse</id>
    <published>2007-03-30T09:00:00-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-02T11:19:23-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Amy Richards</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>When FIFE, as in  feminism is for everyone, a campus group invited me to speak at the  University of Virginia, I was immediately on board. What I hadn&#39;t entirely  absorbed was that this wasn&#39;t a straight up lecture with questions and answers,  my usual gig, but a debate orchestrated by the conservative minded  Intercollegiate Studies Institute about the validity of Women&#39;s Studies. The  planners wondered—Are We Getting It Right?—and posed this question to myself and  my debate partner, Jennifer Roback Morse. Morse, who describes herself as your  coach for the culture wars, opposes the existence of Women&#39;s Studies, arguing  that tax payer dollars would be better spent supporting a Men&#39;s Studies program.  In formal debate speak, I was described as the affirmative debater, which was  funny since the genesis of the evening was the <a href="http://www.enlightenedwomen.org/" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Network of Enlightened Women</a>, a  regressive contradiction of an organization, their premise being that Women&#39;s  Studies was discriminatory.</p>      ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>When FIFE, as in  feminism is for everyone, a campus group invited me to speak at the  University of Virginia, I was immediately on board. What I hadn&#39;t entirely  absorbed was that this wasn&#39;t a straight up lecture with questions and answers,  my usual gig, but a debate orchestrated by the conservative minded  Intercollegiate Studies Institute about the validity of Women&#39;s Studies. The  planners wondered—Are We Getting It Right?—and posed this question to myself and  my debate partner, Jennifer Roback Morse. Morse, who describes herself as your  coach for the culture wars, opposes the existence of Women&#39;s Studies, arguing  that tax payer dollars would be better spent supporting a Men&#39;s Studies program.  In formal debate speak, I was described as the affirmative debater, which was  funny since the genesis of the evening was the <a href="http://www.enlightenedwomen.org/" rel="nofollow">Network of Enlightened Women</a>, a  regressive contradiction of an organization, their premise being that Women&#39;s  Studies was discriminatory. </p>
<p>Morse&#39;s opinions were less annoying than the  fact that she entirely derailed the topic. Instead of focusing on Women&#39;s  Studies, she prioritized telling this packed audience that men were in bad shape—men were more likely to be depressed, abandoned by their wives, and men have a  harder time getting jobs than women. Her overriding message was—work, have  kids by the time you are 25, stay home with them while they are young and then  grow up to make a living telling other women not to make a living. Morse is  relatively honest that her argument derives mostly from her own biography—she  had fertility problems, felt trapped in academia and forced to decide between  her job and her family, and being married to another professor, free to actually  make choices such as to work or not work. </p>
<p>I&#39;m always one to play nice; at least I have  found I get further if I focus on delivering my perspective without engaging  with what I might describe as another person&#39;s nonsense. That evening, my main  point was that a successful liberal arts education should teach one how to think  and be less about accumulating knowledge. I also argued that it&#39;s all the better  for a student to be in a class and not agree with the professor; learning how to  challenge someone else&#39;s perceived wisdom is a great educational moment. Using  my own experience of having been an Art History major turned feminist activist  and writer, I argued that our undergraduate classes are rarely a predictor of  what we pursue in our professional lives. Yes, Women&#39;s Studies has a bias—just  like English departments that disproportionately teach Shakespeare and History  departments that leave the contribution of Black and Native Americans as a  footnote. I also highlighted my hope that one day Women&#39;s Studies would be  conflated into other departments; as is this department often fills in the gaps  left by other major departments. </p>
<p>I stayed on topic because I thought it  pointless to try to fight &quot;her facts&quot; with &quot;my facts.&quot; And I knew most of her  facts to be bogus. True, men might be more likely to commit suicide but it&#39;s  disproportionately gay men and therefore, most likely because they didn&#39;t fit  into society&#39;s (<em>aka</em> Morse&#39;s)  definition of men. It&#39;s not that men suffer more depression, but they are less  likely to seek help thus having the depression manifest more negatively than in  women (again, the reason men often repress their depression is because this  illness might disqualify them from the strong, protector, de-facto role they  otherwise inhabit). Women might be more likely to &quot;file&quot; for divorce—but most  have been pushed to that place either because they have been emotionally  abandoned in their marriages or because they realize life will be easier without  being saddled with someone else. </p>
<p>The main difference between Morse and me was  that I actually believe in these young women. I know that most of them will have  a life somewhere between Morse and me—they will be partnered, will become  parents, will have jobs, will contribute to supporting their families, and will  be pioneering. Morse and her camp have more reason to tamp down these women&#39;s  ambitions—for one, there are only so many women who can be successful as  cultural critics and, two, because the more options women have the less likely  they will be to solely adhere to their biological mandates. I&#39;m less threatened  by the part of them that might be more conventional—such as having babies and  taking their husband&#39;s names—because I know that nothing is more likely to push  people toward feminism than feeling trapped and feeling like you don&#39;t have  options. In Morse&#39;s world women won&#39;t have options, life for women will be  scripted, what a perfect invitation to feminism.</p>
<blockquote><p> Editor&#39;s note: Jennifer Roback Morse was one of the <a href="/blog/2006/09/21/anti-contraception-conference-features-an-unusual-bunch" rel="nofollow">presenters at Contraception Is Not the Answer</a> (CINTA).  Also, check out <a href="/blog/2007/03/07/long-on-judgments-short-on-solutions-jennifer-roback-morse-on-medicaid-births-in-oklahoma" rel="nofollow">Andrea Lynch&#39;s recent post</a> analyzing Morse&#39;s article on Medicaid births in Oklahoma. </p>
</p></blockquote>      ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Bill O&#039;Reilly Doesn&#039;t Scare Me</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/11/14/bill-oreilly-doesnt-scare-me" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/11/14/bill-oreilly-doesnt-scare-me</id>
    <published>2006-11-14T08:00:00-05:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-02T11:18:34-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Amy Richards</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Women’s Rights" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>Bill O&#39;Reilly doesn&#39;t scare me. I have been on his show a few times and know that his bark is a lot louder than his bite. He&#39;s a bully, in that classic playground sense - he&#39;s not nice, unless you play his game. That said, however, when his producer invited me to contribute to a segment about the then impending <a href="/blog/tag/supreme-court" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Supreme Court cases</a> dealing with later-term abortions, and the medical records from two abortion providers in Kansas being turned over to that state&#39;s Attorney General after a two year escapade, I was apprehensive. The stakes seemed higher - my other appearances dealt with dating on college campuses and unwed mothers - and abortion is automatically a heated conversation; having that conversation on contested territory seemed pointless. I agreed because I felt I had a few things to offer: exposing the anonymity that was inherit in one&#39;s medical records would make patients vulnerable and putting restrictions on &quot;later-term abortions&quot; would jeopardize a woman&#39;s health because it would deny her medical expertise otherwise available to her - selling her a lap belt rather than a shoulder strap, with proof that the latter was safer. Plus, when it comes to the disproportionately conservative media, I felt I owed it to viewers to offer them some hope of another perspective.</p>      ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[  <p>Bill O&#39;Reilly doesn&#39;t scare me. I have been on his show a few times and know that his bark is a lot louder than his bite. He&#39;s a bully, in that classic playground sense - he&#39;s not nice, unless you play his game. That said, however, when his producer invited me to contribute to a segment about the then impending <a href="/blog/tag/supreme-court" rel="nofollow">Supreme Court cases</a> dealing with later-term abortions, and the medical records from two abortion providers in Kansas being turned over to that state&#39;s Attorney General after a two year escapade, I was apprehensive. The stakes seemed higher - my other appearances dealt with dating on college campuses and unwed mothers - and abortion is automatically a heated conversation; having that conversation on contested territory seemed pointless. I agreed because I felt I had a few things to offer: exposing the anonymity that was inherit in one&#39;s medical records would make patients vulnerable and putting restrictions on &quot;later-term abortions&quot; would jeopardize a woman&#39;s health because it would deny her medical expertise otherwise available to her - selling her a lap belt rather than a shoulder strap, with proof that the latter was safer. Plus, when it comes to the disproportionately conservative media, I felt I owed it to viewers to offer them some hope of another perspective.  </p>
<p>In the five minutes that I <a href="/blog/2006/11/06/oreilly-channels-mccarthy" rel="nofollow">&quot;conversed&quot; with O&#39;Reilly</a>, we never got past what was happening in Kansas. O&#39;Reilly&#39;s distillation: George Tiller, one of the providers, was killing babies weeks before their due date, and rapists were going un-prosecuted because of doctors sequestering their patients&#39; records. Knowing the work of George Tiller, I maintained that he saved women&#39;s lives and was only doing what he was legally allowed to do as a medical professional. (<em>Roe v. Wade</em> states that a pregnancy can be terminated anytime before viability - once a fetus can live independently of its mother.) It&#39;s not my job as an &quot;advocate&quot; or O&#39;Reilly&#39;s job as a spin doctor, to determine what women can or can&#39;t terminate a pregnancy, but to leave it as a choice between a woman and her physician, as the law states it should be. There are a myriad of reasons of why women turn to Tiller, most often because they are desperate and literally have no where else to go. In my opinion, some stories are undoubtedly sad and a good example of the importance of Tiller&#39;s work, for instance, a baby who won&#39;t make it full-term and a mother who doesn&#39;t want to deliver a dead baby - for her own sanity or perhaps she has small children at home and wants to protect them.  Other stories are harder to rally behind, for instance, a mother who just didn&#39;t make a decision earlier. It&#39;s not my job (or O&#39;Reilly&#39;s) to determine whose choices are legitimate, only to ensure that women who feel that they want access to Tiller&#39;s medical expertise can have it.  </p>
<p>&quot;The Factor had proof&quot; that ten year old girls were being raped, going to Tiller for an abortion and he wasn&#39;t reporting the rapist. O&#39;Reilly harangued me for not being outraged. I was curious about how O&#39;Reilly had these records, since they weren&#39;t intended for mass consumption - but in the two seconds you have to make a point, you can&#39;t ask for footnotes. Going with what information O&#39;Reilly forced on me, I reiterated what I know to be true - exposing someone&#39;s story isn&#39;t the way to justice and having the name of a rapist wouldn&#39;t get us very far in convicting rapists - acquaintance rape and incest are far more common than stranger rape. Having spent more than a decade running an online advice column, <a href="http://www.feminist.com/askamy" rel="nofollow">Ask Amy</a>, where I have heard from hundreds of rape victims, I know that few cases actually get prosecuted because of bureaucratic laws and societal judgment, which shuns those who are raped, thus making anonymity and personal healing a more viable solution than criminal proceedings. </p>
<p>As I slumped into the car on the way home from the show, I had a new empathy for those folks who do this work everyday - Doctor Tiller and other providers, the staffs of Planned Parenthood and other service providers, the lawyers who go before the courts. I can certainly handle being called a baby killer, but I can&#39;t digest that someone challenges my investment in this movement. I don&#39;t gain anything from this advocacy - and frankly, as a white middle class woman it&#39;s something that I will always be able to access - but I support these procedures and this access because I know that access improves women&#39;s lives.</p>
<blockquote><p>Editor&#39;s note: To watch Richards on the O&#39;Reilly Factor, <a href="/blog/2006/11/06/oreilly-channels-mccarthy" rel="nofollow">click here</a>. </p>
</p></blockquote>      ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
