ASK Musings

No matter where you go, there you are.

Feminism Archive

Thursday

10

March 2011

0

COMMENTS

Eleven years old.

Written by , Posted in Feminism

Did you happen to read the article in the NY Times yesterday, about the 11-year-old gang raped by 18 men and boys?

If not, please take a moment to go read the article. Read it and think about the choices the author made. The decisions about which quotes to include.

Then please read this article from The Rumpus. I especially appreciate that the author raises questions but is not sure of all the answers.

http://therumpus.net/2011/03/the-careless-language-of-sexual-violence/

Monday

4

October 2010

0

COMMENTS

Speaking of Religion …

Written by , Posted in Feminism

4 October 2010 Last updated at 15:20 ET

Vatican official criticises Nobel win for IVF pioneer

The first test tube baby celebrated her 30th birthday with Prof Edwards in 2008

A Vatican official has said the awarding of the Nobel Prize for Medicine to British IVF pioneer Robert Edwards is “completely out of order”.

Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said the award ignored the ethical questions raised by the fertility treatment.

He said IVF had led to the destruction of large numbers of human embryos.

Nearly four million babies have been born using IVF fertility treatment since 1978.

Mr Carrasco, the Vatican’s spokesman on bio-ethics, said in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) had been “a new and important chapter in the field of human reproduction”.

But he said the Nobel prize committee’s choice of Prof Edwards had been “completely out of order” as without his treatment, there would be no market for human eggs “and there would not be a large number of freezers filled with embryos in the world”, he told Italy’s Ansa news agency.

“In the best of cases they are transferred into a uterus but most probably they will end up abandoned or dead, which is a problem for which the new Nobel prize winner is responsible.”

In his statement, Mr Carrasco stressed that he was speaking in a personal capacity.

The Nobel medicine prize committee in Oslo said Prof Edwards’ work had brought “joy to infertile people all over the world”.

“His achievements have made it possible to treat infertility, a medical condition afflicting a large proportion of humanity, including more than 10% of all couples worldwide,” it said.

Prof Edwards efforts in the 1950s, 60s and 70s led to the birth of the world’s first “test tube baby”, Louise Brown, in July 1978.

Ms Brown said the award was “fantastic news”.

“Me and mum are so glad that one of the pioneers of IVF has been given the recognition he deserves,” she said.

“We hold Bob in great affection and are delighted to send our personal congratulations to him and his family at this time.”

 

Tuesday

31

August 2010

0

COMMENTS

Wednesday

28

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

From MN Progressive Project: Target Corporation Responds Poorly as News Goes Nationwide

Written by , Posted in Feminism


Target Corporation Responds Poorly as News Goes Nationwide

by: BearBudMN

Last week the news of Target Corporation’s $150,000.00 donation to Minnesota Forward made it’s way around Minnesota.  Particularly Minnesota’s LGBTQ Communities. Three different stories were written in the Twin Cities LGBT News Blog The Colu.mn.  There were also two different blog posts here on the Minnesota Progressive Project.  A boycott of Target group has been created on Facebook over the weekend with close to 100 members already signed on.

As of last Friday many of us who started contacting Target about our disappointment over the corporations decision to support Minnesota Forward most likely got a return email that was very much like this one:

Dear Philip Lowe,

Target has long believed that engaging in civic activities is an important and necessary element of operating a national retail business. What’s more important than any one candidate’s stance on a particular issue is how we nurture thoughtful, long-term growth in the state of Minnesota.

To continue to grow and create jobs and opportunity in our home state, we believe it is imperative to be engaged in public policy and the political process. That is why we are members of organizations like the Minnesota Business Partnership, the Chamber of Commerce and many others. And that is why we decided to contribute to MN Forward.

MN Forward’s objective is to elect candidates from both parties who will make job creation and economic growth a top priority. We operate best when working collaboratively with legislators on both sides of the aisle.  In fact, if you look at our Federal PAC contributions year to date, you will see that they are very balanced between Republicans and Democrats. For more information please visit www.target.com/company, and view the Civic  Activity page.

Target has a large stake in Minnesota’s future, which is why it is so important to be able to provide jobs, serve guests, support communities and deliver on our commitment to shareholders. As an international business that is proud to call Minnesota home, it is critical that we have a business environment that allows us to be competitive. Our guests, team members, communities and shareholders depend on Target to remain competitive.

Please don’t hesitate to call me at (612) 307-5075 using the reference number 1-452594505 if you would like to discuss this further.

Thanks for taking the time to share your feedback.

Sincerely,

Dylan
Target Executive Offices
[THREAD ID:1-7HHF7B]

Here was my response to that email.

 

Dear Dylan,

The very fact that Target Corporation has placed a business and it’s corporate interests above the civil rights of individual people, and supported a candidate that is against the very principle’s that Target claims to be in favor of, is unacceptable.

I will continue to no longer support Target Corporation and encourage other members of the LGBTQ communities to follow suit.

I will not accept or tolerate any explanation of what Target has done in this regard, except refusing to further fund Forward Minnesota and Tom Emmer’s Campaign.

In addition to Tom Emmer’s claim against the LGBTQ communities, Tom Emmer is also in favor of reducing Minnesota’s Minimum Wage requirement, which will give more power to corporations to further do damage to Minnesota’s already hurting work force.

I therefore will not accept the answer that I have been given, and now regard Target as a lying ally of the LGBTQ communities.  Come Monday morning, I will begin my communications with the Human Rights Campaign to see if we can make the move against Target a nationalized activist campaign.

Philip

 

That email was followed with the following response.

 

Dear Philip Lowe,

Thanks for taking the time to share your additional thoughts about your experience. Our support of causes and candidates is based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business interests.

Your feedback helps us understand the changes you’d like to see at Target. Because we’re always reviewing our policies and services, I’ve shared your comments with the appropriate team.

Sincerely,

Dylan
Target Guest Relations
www.target.com
[THREAD ID:1-7HHF7B]

In other words a professionally polite “screw you.”

The news of Target’s decision to fund Tom Emmer’s PAC went beyond Minnesota when I wrote a blog article about it on Pam’s House Blend.  In the comments of my blog post was the following.

 

Mr. Steinhafel,
I have long recognized Target’s progressive policies toward its LGBT employees and have thusly rewarded it with my business, even in the face of miserable customer service experiences at your XXXX location near my home.  My household easily spends over $1,000 at Target each month.  Due to Target’s heavy support of gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, my household’s spending will now be directed elsewhere.

In 1985 I was a leader in the economic response to bigotry at the ballot box in Houston when anti-discrimination policies of the city were taken to a referendum.  Major financial institutions and other businesses suffered losses of income due to their support of bigotry, though many became enlightened about workplace fairness in the process and reformed their corporate human resources policies.  Twenty-five years later I cannot abide by Target’s betrayal of the trust of LGBT consumers, regardless of the “pro-jobs” rhetoric your firm has proliferated in response to other questions about support for Emmer.

Corporations and politicians are either with me or against me.  To stand lukewarm or conflicted is just as bad as outright hate.

With kindest regards,
David Phillips

And this one:

 

The following is an email I sent to Target, via their web page. Thanks for the corporate contact and address, as I will also be sending a message directly to the CEO.

For all the good I’ve always heard about Target doing for the local communities it serves, it was quite a shock to read an article about Target giving $150,000 to Minnesota Forward, which supports the gubernatorial campaign of Tom Emmer, an opponent of gay marriage. The article (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/24/Target_Contributes_to_Anti… states that Target’s response was that “Target supports causes and candidates based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business interests.” I suspect, and hope, that Target is going to find out that this contribution is going to have an adverse affect on your retail and business interests, as it appears that you hopefully will realize that the LGBT community doesn’t like getting stabbed in the back, and will realize the hypocrisy you espouse. I personally don’t do a lot of shopping at Target, as there isn’t one close to me, but I will now make every effort to avoid Target, and let my friends in the LGBT community know what you’re really up to. I don’t think they’ll react too sympathetically with your decision.

And lastly

 

…???
If Minnesota Forward’s aim is to create businesses and jobs, for the love of God, why are they accepting money from the likes of Target (Walmart lite)…?!

These types of mega-retailers kill local businesses and apparently would rather shell out $150,000 to a political organization than pay their average employees a living wage.

.

It just so happens that as I was proofreading this blog post, I got a returned phone call from the national office of the Human Rights Campaign.  HRC Press Secretary Paul Guequierre sent me the following statement as he told me that HRC is attempting to work directly with Target over their choice to support Minnesota Forward.

 

Target has worked hard to create a fair and equitable workplace for its LGBT employees, and should be proud of its leadership in this area. It is for this reason that HRC is very disappointed in Target’s significant monetary contribution to Minnesota Forward, a group supporting the most clearly anti-LGBT candidate for Governor in Minnesota. We have reached out to Target to express our concern over this contribution. While political contributions to support candidates are not a factor in HRC Foundation’s Corporate Equality Index, HRC finds it puzzling that Target would take great steps to support LGBT inclusiveness while simultaneously helping a candidate who shamelessly rejects equality for LGBT Minnesotans.

The news of Target Corporations support of Tom Emmer is also in a newspaper in San Francisco where they are reportedly building a new store there.

How will Target deal with the news that what they have done in Minnesota also affects them in other parts of the country?  We have yet to see.  This is getting very interesting to say the least.

 

As always, corporations make decisions to support candidates and causes that I may not always support myself. It would be difficult to function in America without patronizing at least some of these corporations. But this? I hope Target reconsiders.

Thursday

1

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

That’s dedication

Written by , Posted in Feminism

Google to offer gay staff extra pay to allow for tax inequality with straight couples

By Scott Warren

Last updated at 6:14 PM on 1st July 2010

INTERNET giant Google today began paying its gay staff more than  heterosexual employees in the latest example of its lavish perks culture.

Lesbian and homosexual staff will get extra wages to make up for higher taxes  they have to pay.

Google is already famed as an extremely benevolent employer, giving its  workforce free food, free laundry and five months’ maternity leave on full pay. New payment: Gay Google employees will now be given extra pay to allow for a tax that is not levied on straight employees

New payment: Gay Google employees will now be given extra pay to allow for a tax that is not levied on straight employees

And given the competitive nature of California’s Silicon Valley, where  companies use extra perks to attract top employees, more are expected to follow  suit, experts said.

The search engine decided it was only fair to bump up the salaries of its gay  staff, a spokesman said.

Under U.S. law, when a firm offers health insurance as a benefit for an  employee’s partner, it is tax-free for married couples but taxable income for  gays.

Google will make up the difference in additional pay, on average £650 a year.

The move was announced today and is being backdated to January 1.

The firm will also speed up infertility benefits for lesbian and homosexual  staff and include their partners in its compassionate leave policy.

How many of Google’s 20,600 employees will be affected by the changes is  unclear, but the company’s internal gay group — who call themselves Gayglers —  counts around 700 members. 
The measures only apply to the workforce in the U.S.

Personnel chief Laszlo Bock, Google’s ‘vice president for people operations,’  said the firm decided to act when an employee pointed out the disparity.

‘We said, “You’re right, that doesn’t seem fair,”‘ he said. He declined to  reveal how much the changes will cost Google, which made profits of £4 billion  last year.

The company is renowned for its innovative streak, and others usually follow  its lead.

‘It could have a ripple effect. When you have a high-profile company doing  anything, that tends to get into the mind of the culture, and it can have a  more diffuse effect,’ said corporate benefits consultant Kathleen Murray.

But Google has also earned a sinister reputation thanks to blunders by its  controversial Street View service, which has sent ‘camera cars’ to take  pictures along every road in Britain.

On Wednesday Claire Rowlands, 25, told how she was stunned to see a photograph  of her three-year-old son Louis naked on Street View.

He had been snapped as he played in his grandmother’s garden in Walkden,  Greater Manchester.

Google blurred out the registration plate of a car on the drive of the house –  but the image of Louis, who was wearing nothing but his shoes, was uncensored.

 

Thursday

1

July 2010

0

COMMENTS

Go Iceland!

Written by , Posted in Feminism

REYKJAVIK, Iceland — Icelandic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir has married her long-term partner, her office said on Monday, making her the world’s first national leader with a same-sex spouse.

Sigurdardottir, 67, married writer Jonina Leosdottir on Sunday, the day a new law took effect defining marriage as a union between two consenting adults regardless of sex.

The two had had a civil union for years and changed this into a marriage under the new law, which was approved by parliament earlier this month.

The new law was celebrated at a church service on Sunday, which was also the international day for homosexual rights.

The prime minister’s office said Sigurdardottir had sent a message to the gathering saying the new law was a cause for celebration for all Icelanders and adding: “I have today taken advantage of this new legislation.”

The Lutheran State Church has long been split on the issue of same-sex marriage and the church congress in April did not unanimously support the new legislation. The bishop of Iceland has urged parish ministers to comply with the law.

Sigurdardottir, who has children from a previous heterosexual marriage, is the world’s only openly gay prime minister but her sexuality has never been an issue in Iceland, which, like the other Nordic states, has a history of tolerance.

Copyright 2010 Reuters.

Fantastic.

Saturday

27

February 2010

2

COMMENTS

Ethics of Reproduction

Written by , Posted in Feminism

Last week was busy. In addition to writing two essays (which I turned in Friday, so the weekend is FREE), I attended three events related to my field of study, but not required or even directly sponsored by the LSE. The first I’ve already written about. The second and third were a lecture and seminar hosted by Gresham College and NYU in London on the Ethics of Reproduction. Specifically, it was a lecture on embryology and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). It was followed the next morning by a smaller seminar where we were able to have more of a conversation. Really, really interesting stuff.

Baroness Ruth Deech spoke first. She has an interesting background – she was in charge of th UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Commission (HFEC) for many years, overseeing rulings related to IVF (in-vitro fertilization) and genetic research. I must say that while much of what she said I found interesting, I do not think she and I would agree on many fundamental issues. For example, I believe she clearly thinks that the only real family involves a heterosexual couple, which I obviously find to be absurd.

The UK has a very regulated industry involving IVF and genetic studies. Unlike in the US, where one can post a request to buy eggs and pay the donor for more than expenses, the UK does not allow it. The goals of the HFEC are to save life and support research. Some of the thinking is that with PGD, it is more moral to test embryos for debilitating diseases and not implant them than to implant, find out about these diseases and then abort.

This has of course raised some serious concerns from members of the disabled community. One of the strongest responses to this type of screening technology has come from the deaf community, where family members are concerned that deaf parents may screen for deafness, not only slowly decreasing the deaf community but also making the deaf (and others with screenable disabilities) even more marginalized. For example, let’s say someone is born deaf when their parents theoretically could have screened for it. Will people assume the parents didn’t love their child enough to want them to be able to hear? Will communities of people with disabilities, or research into ways to treat disabilities, become less important because some can screen away for it?

One interesting question that came from this is that there were cases of parents who were deaf wanting to screen to ensure their child WAS deaf. In the UK that is not allowed – you can screen out a characteristic that is seen as unhealthy, but you cannot screen in for the same characteristic, nor can you screen for gender. However, you can screen for gender if the disease of concern is carried on the Y chromosome.

A question that was raised related to this entire issue was this: does one have a right to be a mother? Baroness Deech does not believe so. She thinks the closest thing would be a right to try to become a mother, but even that, she admitted, tends to really be for the people who can afford it. It’s an interesting ethical topic

The other speaker was Rayna Rapp, who teaches on Anthropological Research at NYU in the states. She spoke a lot about how reproductive technologies are used in religious communities – for example, tay sachs screenings in the Jewish Community. Much of what she had to say had graphics to go with it, so I can’t illustrate it really properly.

It was a really interesting discussion. I find the PGD aspect fascinating, especially in the US where there isn’t the same type of regulation. I am also interested in the financial aspects – once again it seems like only the well-off are able to screen out for certain diseases, or are able to even use IVF in the first place. I’ve often found myself torn on IVF, given how many children exist already without homes. But I’ve also never a) wanted kids and b) faced infertility.

Wednesday

7

October 2009

0

COMMENTS

Capitol Briefing – CBO Says Senate Health Bill Would Expand Coverage, Reduce Deficit

Written by , Posted in Feminism

CBO Says Senate Health Bill Would Expand Coverage, Reduce Deficit

Updated 5:06 p.m.
By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
A health-care reform bill drafted by the Senate Finance Committee would expand health coverage to nearly 30 million Americans who currently lack insurance and would meet President Obama’s goal of reducing the federal budget deficit by 2019, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The bill would cost $829 billion over the next decade, but would more than offset that cost by slicing hundreds of billions from government health programs such as Medicare and by imposing a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance policies starting in 2013.

All told, the package would slice $81 billion from projected budget deficits over the next 10 years, the CBO said, and continue to reduce deficits well into the future.

It would also expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans by 2019, the CBO said, up from the current 83 percent.

The assessment by Congress’s nonpartisan auditors has been awaited by committee members as they prepare to vote on the bill, perhaps as soon as Thursday. And the CBO report lends a huge political boost to the Finance Committee’s work: distinguishing it as the only one of five bills drafted by various congressional committees that meets every important test established by President Obama and key Democratic leaders.

— It would cost less than $900 billion over the next decade;

— It would vastly expand coverage; and

— It would keep Obama’s pledge that health reform will not increase budget deficits by “one dime” now or in the future.

“This is transformative. This is game-changing,” Finance committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said. “For two years now, that’s exactly what we have been doing in the Finance Committee — working to get this result.”

The committee’s vote is expected to be close, and passage could hinge on a handful of senators who have indicated that the CBO’s report may sway them.

In a letter to Baucus and Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the committee’s ranking Republican, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf cautioned that the analysis is preliminary in large part because the committee has not yet drawn up the bill in legislative language.

By Lori Montgomery  |  October 7, 2009; 4:33 PM ET

Interesting.

Monday

20

July 2009

1

COMMENTS

Health Care

Written by , Posted in Feminism

President Obama, Secretary Sebilius and others are working hard right now to try to solve the nation’s health care problem. I hope they do it soon.

However, I don’t think what they are proposing (as well as I understand it) is the right solution. The main reason is the reliance on employer-provided health care.

Can we stop with that? Having one’s health tied to one’s job seems like, and has been in my experience, a really horrible idea. It keeps people in jobs they don’t like (that others might do better, which could improve the nation’s productivity) and prevents people from leaving for jobs they might do better. It causes stress and crazy debt for people. 

And think about a really bad day. You lose your job. So that sucks. And then, you find out that not only do you not have a job, but if you want to keep health insurance on the chance that you don’t get a job within 63 days, it’ll cost you up to $400 / month. And that’s just for you – if you have a family, it could $1,000 or more. A month. While you are unemployed.

I don’t know if a government-run system makes the most sense. But private competition with no requirement to cover people seems to be doing squat right now. It punishes people for taking care of themselves. For example, one must list all medical issues within the last ten years. So if one is responsible and visits the doctor while the cough is still a cough, instead of waiting for it to turn into pneumonia, it gets listed. And if one gets diagnosed with a non-life-threatening condition that could develop into something worse, one gets denied outright. Nevermind that one could have just forgone doctors appointments for a couple of years and the condition would have gone undiagnosed, thus allowing the person to get health insurance. It’s this system of perverse incentives (don’t go to a doctor and hope you’ll get better on your own) that seems to be contributing to people who, once they do get sick, are really, really sick, and end up costing us all a lot of money.

I have some ideas. One is removing the job-health insurance connection. Another is preventing companies from denying patients coverage. They have loads of data one how likely people are to get certain diseases based on their past history. So let’s say Sue has had condition X for a year (one that requires little to no medical care), and 5% of people like her with condition X develop condition Y, the treatment of which is quite costly. Can’t they instead just charge her 5% extra for her coverage? Or 5% x % increase in cost? There are obviously some not-so-well researched conditions, but I’m guessing there’s a lot of data on obesity and heart disease, or asthma and other respiratory ailments. 

The Economist had an interesting article probably five years ago about requiring all to have health insurance. I love that idea. If all were required to do it, we’d have to fix the system. Hopefully remove it from any sort of tie to employement. Use the tax breaks given to employers to provide tax breaks and subsidies to consumers.

There was also an excellent article in the NY Times Magazine on the topic of restricting health care (posted below).

This is admittedly not the most well-thought-out musing I’ve ever posted, but I couldn’t not comment on it. I’m about to leave my job, and while I’ll have coverage when in London, I won’t have coverage at home, so I’m going through all of the options. COBRA is ridiculously expensive, and the various private options are hit-and-miss. I could go without, but I’d give my mother a year of stress that she doesn’t need, and myself a hefty hospital bill should something happen to me when I’m outside the UK.

Friday

29

May 2009

0

COMMENTS