Women's Issues from The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com

Haunted by Elizabeth

Anne Taylor Fleming — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:10:57 GMT

What what she thinking?

That’s the question that continues to haunt the painful saga of John and Elizabeth Edwards. Not that she loves him and stayed with him after he confessed to having an affair (and possible lust child; though whether he told her about that we don’t know).

If we have learned one thing watching Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, it is that marriages are complex, each and every one, with its bargains, and attachments, and wounds that run deep. After, of course, insisting she was not some little woman standing by her man, Hillary Clinton was in many respects just that. It was clearly what she needed to do, sailing on post-presidency into the Senate and her own fierce run for the White House.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

No, the question in Elizabeth Edwards's case is: Why in the world did she go ahead and let him run -- run with him, run hard all across the country, giving her all despite her stage four cancer and her two young children -- after she knew. After she knew about his dalliance with a bouncy, blond so-called filmmaker with a penchant for New Age spirituality.

In these days of her public humiliation, one wants not to add to it. He is the cad, the creep. Looking back at his charm, his expensively coiffed hair, his caramel-voiced defense of the poor --- while he built a palatial country estate. All this was a bit suspicious at the time. There were overtones of another Slick Willy.

But then there was Elizabeth Edwards. She was the moral anchoring point, the class act. So authentic, so warm, so unslick, so graceful, so brave. If a woman of such obvious depth and concern for the country, a woman who had lost a son and had faced cancer with openness and strength -- sharing it all but not in a sympathy-begging way -- if a woman like that loved a man like that, well then, he must be OK, too.

He must be, underneath the mediagenic voice and looks, real, too. Because he loved her. Because he was proud of her and said so at every turn. Because she was his sounding board, his best surrogate, his No. 1 campaigner.

The country needed her husband, she told us, with that wonderful smile, and she was willing to throw heart and soul into his run. Not just for him, not just to help him fulfill his ambitions -- but for us. She made believers of us all -- not about him, but about herself. She was the real deal, someone we could all emulate, want to get to know, want for a friend.

Yes, there was carping at the time from some quarters as they launched their White House quest, running side by side and hand in hand. What about the kids? They were little; they needed stability, a mom at home (what about dad?). And what about the cancer? Was she, the mother of such young children, jeopardizing her health by barreling around the county helping to humanize and sell her husband?

There was a bit of that, and the implication that her ego, too, might be involved -- that she wasn’t quite as selfless as she appeared. But, with her energy and accessibility, she made believers of just about everyone, especially after she announced the cancer was back and she -- they -- would still run full-tilt.

Amazing, touching and, perhaps in hindsight, a little nuts. Because she knew all that time about the affair. She had to know the tabloids were after the story and after her husband -- stalking him as he stalked the White House. It’s just a little bit bizarre, that disconnect, even from someone so special and admirable.

Somewhere in all this, she, too, put the blinders on. One can only assume she was thinking that he wouldn’t be found out. What if he had somehow gotten into more serious contention? What if he had actually won the nomination? What if had come out now, on the practical eve, of the convention? Would the media and the public just swallow hard and say, oh well, old news. None of our business.

Not this year. It would have been a mess, a bigger one than there is now.

That’s what is both troubling and sad. You can make the argument that this is private stuff, private pain. Many people clearly believe that would be a more desirable state of affairs -- where personal lives and personal indiscretions are not constantly fair game. But that is not the world we live in right now, nor the country.

Elizabeth Edwards, so spot on in every way, had to know that. It wasn’t going to be tucked under any rug in her nice, new house. She could forgive him and re-embrace him -- as she says she has. But the country might not be able to do that anymore. Bill Clinton seemed to get away with bimbo eruptions when he was first running for president, but the level of cad fatigue has geometrically increased. And, by running with her husband, Elizabeth Edwards, in effect, invited us all in -- yes, even those nasty tabloids who had been chasing him from day one.

I just wish she hadn’t. I don’t want to know. I didn’t want to see the requisite mea culpa from the latest cad, didn’t want to have to imagine the disgust and hurt of his wife and family.

At least, John Edwards made the repentance rounds on his own. Elizabeth Edwards did not have to stand by her man, like Silda Spitzer, her face etched in pain and humiliation. That’s something. But the bottom line is the same: if you want to keep it really private, you can't run for public office. Not today.

Anne Taylor Fleming is a novelist, commentator and essayist for "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." She is the author of a memoir, "Motherhood Deferred: A Woman's Journey."

Moving Up the Ranks

Holly Yeager — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:19:18 GMT

When Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced this week that President George W. Bush had nominated the U.S. military's first woman four-star general, he was happy to tout the significance. "Women continue to achieve great success and make invaluable contributions to the defense of this nation,” Gates said. “This is an historic occasion for the Dept. of Defense.”

But Lt. Gen. Ann Dunwoody, the woman who made that history, seemed to downplay the feminist moment. "This nomination only reaffirms what I have known to be true about the military throughout my career," she said in a statement released by the Pentagon, "... that the doors continue to open for men and women in uniform.”

Dunwoody and other successful women in the military tread carefully when it comes to talking about their place in what is still a strongly masculine institution. They are determined to see their accomplishments measured against all their peers -- male and female -- and usually resist anything that might be regarded as special consideration. But despite that determination to fit in, Dunwoody brings an unusual perspective to her work.

“I’m a very positive person,” Dunwoody told me in an interview just over a year ago. “I focus on all the goodness going on.” That doesn’t mean avoiding tough challenges, she explained, but rather, not loosing track of the good things that are happening. But are there a lot of other generals who focus on “all the goodness?” “That might not be the first thing out of their mouths,” she conceded with a laugh.

Dunwoody, when talking about whether men and woman lead differently, brought up a 2004 analysis of four Army divisions that had just returned from tours in Iraq. It found that most leaders had strong technical and tactical skills, but what set the best leaders apart was their interpersonal skills. The study identified what it called the “Big 12”—a set of behaviors exhibited by the officers best able to achieve operational excellence and motivate good soldiers to remain in the Army. At the top of the list: keeps cool under pressure; clearly explains missions, standards and priorities; sees the big picture, provides context and perspective.

Those are the kinds of traits that many place on the female side of the ledger. Though Dunwoody said she didn't see it that way, "but maybe that's because I've been in a green suit for so long." She didn't offer it as proof that women are set to zoom up the chain of command. But, rather, it suggests that if there is a "softer," female way of doing things, that approach is increasingly valued in the military as it modernizes and also struggles to hold on to its workforce.

Following tradition, Dunwoody isn’t likely to say much until the Senate confirms her appointment as chief of Army Materiel Command, responsible for supplying the Army with all its equipment. But in the interview – conducted for a Wilson Quarterly story on women military officers – she gave plenty of clues about just what kind of four-star general she would be.

Dunwoody didn't hesitate when asked about her own leadership style, shooting back with her Myers-Briggs personality assessment. She’s an ENFP (extraversion, intuition, feeling, perceiving), which the testing people describe as “Warmly enthusiastic and imaginative. See life as full of possibilities….Spontaneous and flexible, often rely on their ability to improvise and their verbal fluency.” Again, is that a common military type? “I would guess that only 1 percent of the Army” fits that description, she said.

“I am a people person,” Dunwoody said, adding that she likes to lead by walking around, asking soldiers, “How is that chow in the mess hall? How are the barracks?”

'I am a people person,' Dunwoody said...'How is that chow in the mess hall? How are the barracks?'

The fourth generation of her family to serve in the military, Dunwoody was commissioned as an officer in 1975, about the time the Women’s Army Corps was being disbanded and women were integrated into the rest of the Army. Today, women make up about 15 percent of enlisted personnel in the U.S. military, and a slightly larger portion of the officer corps, including 57 women who are three-star generals and admirals.

Dunwoody, then deputy chief of staff of the Army, described a fundamental change in the U.S. military that has scrambled long-standing rules that bar women from most combat jobs. “Before, it was a linear battlefield,” she said. “In the rear was kind of a safe haven. That is no more –- it is a blurred battlefield out there.”

Many analysts expect the experience in the Iraq war, where those blurred lines have brought many female soldiers into combat situations, to prompt a thorough review of the rules that govern what jobs women can have. “Everything is always open for study,” Dunwoody said.

She talked about the meritocracy of the military (“I truly believe that the Army promotes based on past performance and demonstrated future potential.”) while praising its commitment to diversity. She said women are helping to change the force -- not because of their gender, but because they are part of a concerted effort to transform the military into a more modern, agile organization.

When she takes over a new job, Dunwoody says she likes to talk about her leadership philosophy, and about herself. For the first five years of her marriage, her husband, Craig Brotchie, was in the Air Force. This often prompted difficult decisions about what jobs to take, and where to live -- even if it meant being apart. “I loved the Army, he loved the Air Force -- and we loved each other,” she said. Dunwoody doesn’t have children. “Not because I didn’t want them,” she said. “But do I think I could have done this with children? I don’t know.”

Still, she says she tells her troops, “At the end of the Army, all you have is family. So don’t lose it along the way.” Dunwoody also likes to give an upfront warning about her pet peeves: bad language, overweight soldiers and people who can’t meet their physical fitness standards. “That takes a lot of guess work out of things,” she said.

Dunwoody insisted she’s “not the only compassionate person in the Army. I have worked for others.” But she’s never worked for a woman. “I’ve been coached and mentored by men my whole life,” she said. “I never worked for a female, they weren’t there.”

Yet Dunwoody is clearly thankful for the women who served before her. She also realizes that she is a role model for younger women, who are now seeing more women make their way to more senior jobs across the military. “It just helps everyone to know what the art of the possible is,” Dunwoody said, “and that they can continue to move up the ranks.”

Holly Yeager is a freelance journalist. She covered the early 2008 Democratic and Republican primaries for The Washington Independent as the site's senior national politics reporter. Before joining TWI, she was a reporter for the Financial Times. She had also covered the Pentagon for The Hearst Newspaper chain and Defense Daily.

Tough to Be a Saudi Woman

Mike Lillis — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:20:00 GMT

Earlier today, we suggested that there’s just a touch of hypocrisy in some lawmakers' condemnation of China’s recent attempt to sell arms to an abusive government in Zimbabwe. That’s because we’ve sold weapons to regimes with far worse human rights’ records than Zimbabwe’s.

As if on cue, Human Rights Watch released a report this week on Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women, and it’s a gem (summary is here; report is here.)

The Saudi government has instituted a system whereby every Saudi woman must have a male guardian, normally a father or husband, who is tasked with making a range of critical decisions on her behalf. This policy, grounded in the most restrictive interpretation of an ambiguous Quranic verse, is the most significant impediment to the realization of women’s rights in the kingdom. The Saudi authorities essentially treat adult women like legal minors who are entitled to little authority over their own lives and well-being./p>

Good thing we just sold these guys $120 million in smart bomb kits. Maybe they can program their missiles to lase unruly wives.

Dingell to Investigate 'Abortion' Search Ban

Mike Lillis — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:54:37 GMT

In the wake of news that a federally funded reproductive health database was programmed earlier this year to ignore searches containing the word "abortion," Congress has gotten in on the act.

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) announced today that the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which he chairs, will investigate the manipulation of the Population Information Online database, run by The Johns Hopkins University and funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Reports indicate that university employees blocked "abortion" searches after USAID officials expressed concerns that two articles contained in the database centered on abortion advocacy.

POPLINE is the largest database of its kind in the world, holding roughly 360,000 articles and records related to reproductive health.

In letters to both Hopkins and USAID, Dingell announced his investigation into "the restriction of scientific inquiry," and asked leaders of both offices to provide details about how the decision was made.

I am concerned that the restriction of certain search terms in the POPLINE database is an ideological decision, and not in line with the spirit of free scientific inquiry intended by the creation of such a database. In addition I am concerned that such a complete restriction was mandated after only two specific items were identified as questionable by POPLINE's funding agency.

Dingell said he wants responses two weeks from today. But given this administration's track record on releasing internal documents, he might not want to hold his breath.

Abortion Ban For American Indians Only

Mike Lillis — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:51:09 GMT

Following scant debate, the Senate last week approved an amendment to an Indian health care bill that would permanently prohibit the use of federal dollars to fund abortions for Native Americans except in rare cases. The move has prompted an outcry from women's health advocates -- who point out that a similar ban has existed on a temporary basis for years -- and from tribal groups, who are asking why Native American women should be subject to restrictions not applicable to other ethnic groups. Some charge that the Senate proposal is overtly racist.

The issue is a sensitive one in American Indian communities, where women are statistically more likely to be victims of rape or sexual assault than other American women -- but also where victims very rarely use the exceptions to the current federally funded abortion ban in the wake of those crimes. In the face of that discrepancy, advocates say, Congress should encourage victims to take advantage of the available services, not impose tighter restrictions.

The debate pits anti-abortion lawmakers on both sides of the aisle against health-care advocates who fear the latest move could set the stage for broader abortion prohibitions under federal programs outside the realm of Indian health services. In addition, there is the intrigue of scandal, for the sponsor of the controversial amendment, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), made headlines last year for his earlier entanglement in a prostitution ring. Several abortion-rights sources suggested that Vitter -- who built his political career on family-values issues -- is trying to bolster his conservative credentials in the wake of that embarrassment.

The controversy swirls around a federal law -- known as the Hyde amendment -- that prohibits abortion coverage under Medicaid, Medicare and Indian Health Service programs. While the Hyde law must be renewed by Congress each year, the Vitter amendment -- which the Senate approved on Feb. 26 -- would apply Hyde's restrictions permanently to IHS beneficiaries. For that reason, tribal health advocates charge that the Vitter language treads on the sovereignty of Indian communities and places unique constraints on native women.

"It's a very racist amendment," said Charon Asetoyer, executive director of the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center, "[because] it puts another layer of restrictions on the only race of people whose health care is governed primarily by the federal government. All women are subject to the Hyde amendment, so why would they put another set of conditions on us?"

Vitter's office did not return several calls and e-mails requesting comment.

A number of women's health groups have criticized the Vitter amendment as well, claiming it will have no practical effect on women's health services.

"Apart from being bad public health policy," Planned Parenthood said in a statement, "this language is duplicative of current law and serves only to politicize important legislation regarding comprehensive health care for Native Americans."

Though the Hyde amendment -- named for its sponsor, the late Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde (R ) -- first took effect in 1977, Congress must reapply it annually through the appropriations process. That, according to Vitter, puts the Hyde language "in a tenuous and precarious posture. It puts it up for debate and possible change of policy every year, every time we debate a new Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Therefore, it doesn't make the policy very solid, very secure, or very clear."

Vitter's amendment, attached last week to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, would eliminate that uncertainty by codifying the Hyde amendment as a matter of authorization, not appropriation. "I suggest that would be a positive statement for life, for positive values for the future," he said on the Senate floor Jan. 22 -- the same day that thousands of anti-abortion marchers descended on Washington. A month later, the Senate approved Vitter's amendment by a vote of 52 to 42.

But critics say the creation of a second law governing IHS-funded abortion services might confuse the issue if inconsistencies are found between the two mandates. Indeed, certain elements of Vitter's amendment stray from the Hyde language. For example, while Hyde allows federally funded abortions for victims of incest at any age, Vitter specifies that the incest exception pertains only to minors.

Marlene Fried, a founding board member of the National Network of Abortion Funds, said the practical implications of that difference would be minimal. Still, she added, the change is significant as "another way of narrowing the [Hyde] exceptions."

The issue is especially charged because Native American women are more than three times as likely to suffer rape and sexual abuse as other women in the United States. Yet despite that statistic, only 25 abortions were performed at all IHS facilities between 1981 and 2001, according to figures gathered from the IHS by the Native American Women's Health Education Resource Center. (An IHS spokeswoman declined to release more recent IHS-funded abortion figures, suggesting that a reporter file a Freedom Of Information Act request.)

But, advocates say, Indian women continue to have the procedure off the reservation. "Native American women have abortions," Asetoyer said, "and anyone who tells you differently is out of touch with their community."

Susan Cohen, the director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive health research group, said the Hyde restrictions don't prevent abortions, but they can delay them as low-income women are forced to save the money to fund the procedures out-of-pocket. That delay, Cohen added, can lead to dangerous complications. "Having later abortions is in no one's best interest," she said.

Meanwhile, some tribal advocates are concerned that the Vitter amendment might carry additional political significance, as the Senate bill now moves to the House for consideration. Several sources said the controversial amendment is potentially a poison pill for the overall bill, for House Democratic leaders have been loathe to codify the Hyde amendment.

Not that the issue is entirely partisan. A number of Democratic lawmakers voted to approve the Vitter provision last week, including Sens. Ken Salazar (Col.), Evan Bayh (Ind.), Robert Byrd (W.Va.), Robert Casey (Pa.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). Of that group, Landrieu and Johnson are up for reelection this year in relative conservative states, with Landrieu facing a tight race.

Three Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins (Me.), Olympia Snowe (Me.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.) -- voted against the amendment. All three have historic records of bucking their party on the abortion issue.

Vitter, for his part, voted against the final IHCIA bill on the same day that his amendment passed. The final bill was approved, however, by a count of 83 to 10.

Women Are Dumb, Inconsequential

Laura McGann — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:55:50 GMT

Yesterday afternoon I was relaxing on my couch with my dog and my RSS when I came across a Washington Post Oped linked to on Feministing called "Women Aren't Very Bright" -- the perfect Sunday read! It is an actual piece that ran in the Outlook section and was featured prominently on the homepage. By the time I got to the WaPost's page the headline had been changed to to read: "Why Do Women Act So Dumb?" (I took a screenshot for posterity.) See the improvement? Act dumb, not are dumb.

If you're thinking it's just another brilliant piece by Laura Sessions Stepp, it's not. The Washington Post is tapping into a new source for its women-hating-by-women pieces, Charlotte Allen. Here's the gist of Allen's article: Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign and, in general, women are dumb and not as good as men. Here's my favorite part:

I'm not the only woman who's dumbfounded (as it were) by our sex, or rather, as we prefer to put it, by other members of our sex besides us. It's a frequent topic of lunch, phone and water-cooler conversations; even some feminists can't believe that there's this thing called "The Oprah Winfrey Show" or that Celine Dion actually sells CDs. A female friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled "Office of Women," in which nothing ever gets done and everyone spends the day talking about Botox.

Ok, I like this too:

The theory that women are the dumber sex -- or at least the sex that gets into more car accidents -- is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence. Men's and women's brains not only look different, but men's brains are bigger than women's (even adjusting for men's generally bigger body size).

I was almost sold with that argument, especially when Allen conceded that there are some "brilliant outliers" who she admires, like Margarent Thatcher. I'll be sure to compliment all my accomplished female friends that way from now on, you "brilliant outliers."

How do you even begin to respond to a piece like this? How do you argue with someone who still says women are the inferior sex, and that argument appears in the Sunday edition of a prominent newspaper. Do you link to studies showing that women aren't in fact, as Allen suggests, "only children of a larger growth"? Do you point out that, despite our pea brains, women are outpacing men in college attendance? Do we point to the fact that we have more women governors holding office right now that at any other point in American history? Doesn't that all just lower the bar on feminist discussions? It's a sad moment for feminism when, at the same moment we have a woman running president, we have to step back and even think there is still an argument to be had.

Pro-Sex Rebellion Spreads to Des Moines

Jefferson Morley — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 14:50:57 GMT

Iowa is the 17th state to turn down federal funding for abstinence-only sex education, reports the Iowa Independent.

Why Do Frenchwomen Find Boy Babies Depressing?

Arthur Allen — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 18:45:05 GMT

Frenchwomen are more likely to suffer post-partum depression if their babies are male, according to a surprising new study released today.

French psychology researchers interviewed 181 women one to two months after birth, and found that 9.4 percent of them were suffering severe postnatal depression; 22 percent were mildly depressed. Of the 17 deeply depressed women, 13 had given birth to boys. In the mildly depressed group (the ratings were based on answers to questions designed to test physical function, pain, mental health, emotions and social vitality), there were 24 girls and 16 boys. But in both the mildly and severely depressed groups, the mothers of boys were doing worse.

These results are the opposite of those arising in surveys conducted in China, South Asia and the Muslim world. In those countries, a high value is put on male babies, who carry the family name and sometimes win the family a dowry when married. In countries like India, women are sometimes beaten for giving birth to girls. No surprise, then, that contemplation of life with a girl baby can be more depressing.

The authors have a few notions about why female babies might be more desired in Western cultures. Using psychoanalytic language of "oedipal" and "narcissistic" personality constructs, they hypothesize that it's easier for modern women to construct a relationship with a baby of the same sex. One woman interviewed during the study said she felt sad when she saw her son on an ultrasound because she would not be able to "educate him in a satisfactory way." The authors also theorize that women having trouble with their relationships might see male babies as more difficult.

Another possibility is this one: the study might be a fluke. More research is obviously needed.

In the meantime, Happy Valentine's Day, fellahs!

Fidelity Is No Solution

Arthur Allen — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:51:39 GMT

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

A new study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases shows that fidelity is no protection when it comes to the virus that causes cervical cancer. As Merck & Co. was releasing its human papilloma virus vaccine in 2006, some warned against giving it to adolescent girls, saying it sent a message of tolerance of immoral sex. Although some conservative religious groups like the Family Research Council have moderated their positions since then, their guidance on the vaccine still stresses that "abstaining from sexual activity is the surest way to prevent infection." And they are right. Abstain from genital contact with anyone for your whole life, and you have virtually no chance of contracting HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

But having one partner, it turns out, is not nearly as good protection as some on the Christian right would like to believe. The authors of the Journal of Infectious Diseases study found that virgins entering a sexual relationship had a 28.5 percent chance of contracting a human papilloma virus infection after a year of monogamous sexual contact. Three years into the relationship, the risk was increased to 50 percent. The rates are lower, of course, when both partners are virgins entering the relationship, and remain faithful. The data indicates how often this occurs in the real world.

About one quarter of all HPV infections are caused by two cancer-causing strains, HPV 16 and 18. The Merck vaccine, Gardasil, guards against these and two other strains that cause genital warts. Cervical cancer each year kills about 3,500 American women and hundreds of thousands in poor countries where there are no regular gynecological examinations.

Merck in 2006 touted Gardasil aggressively, pushing states to quickly mandate the vaccine for 6th graders. This misguided policy led to a backlash, in which arguments about the immorality of vaccination were mixed in with more logical concerns about vaccinating millions of kids with a relatively untried vaccine. The vaccine has been on the market a while, now, though, and there are so far no indications that it's unsafe. Except, apparently, to some world views.