Expert Opinion

These days, when the men in Congress invite the men in the Church to testify on how better they can help women see the light, some of us are starting to notice.  Some of us are beginning to remember, as though awakening from a deep slumber, that it wasn't always like this.  But before it wasn't like this, it was.

What I mean is that many of us grew up in a Mad Men world, where being thin and pretty were requirements not only for being a stewardess but for answering phones in an office.  In that world, we kept things tidy and never made a fuss.  We were mostly homemakers, and when we made ripples, folks, we were unceremoniously squashed.

I remember as a psychology student learning about the high rates of women in psychiatric hospitals diagnosed with depression, and the new miracle drugs, like Valium, that would get them back on the track to being happy.  Because without a happy wife, how could the husband go out and conquer the world?

Fortunately, that was my mother's generation, and in the fifties there was enough social security -- the kind you get from having a roof over your head with an affordable mortgage and knowing you were going to college -- to have the guts to begin to question your world.

Who were men to tell us what made us happy?  Or that our job was to keep them happy?  We knew we were smart and starting to realize we were as smart (maybe smarter) than the boys that were going to college and getting better jobs than us.

We made waves.  And it felt good.  And for awhile, the men in charge listened.  And then more women were in charge.

But not enough.

The men were persistent; they know war.  We women knew how to work hard, and we also knew guilt.  We tried to do it all, and that left us vulnerable, too busy doing it all and trying to get it right to fight battles we thought we had already won.

Men let women be midwives when it wasn't worth their time, but when it became a career they began to fight to take it away from us.

They let us be managers as long as our lower wages could make their profits greater.  And as long as women were taking care of the children, they weren't as likely to rise too high, or rise up to fight.

And as long as we were the ones that had babies, we were still going to be under their thumbs.

This is why so much energy is being focused on women's reproductive freedom.  In a Congress that daily fights to deny women food stamps and health care the issue is certainly not the value of life.  It is, however, about power and money.

Good education can give a girl hope for a good future.  Access to contraception can free a young adult from worry, and allow her to control her present and her future.  Availability of safe abortions mean security for women and their families.

The crazies of the religious right are merely pawns of the power brokers.  They are used daily in front of the offices of abortion providers, and they are used at the polls on election day.  Groups with warm and fuzzy names like the Family Research Council are about as anti-family as you can get; they scorn poor women for having too many babies at the same time as they cut off her education and access to birth control.

But our "representatives" in Congress look to these anti-life groups as "experts" when they are looking to force their way on women.  And while the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops may be momentarily busy tap-dancing around the actual Christian values of their new Pope, they will still make time to restate their control over women.

Let's start questioning -- loudly -- the "expert opinions" that have nothing to do with science, nothing to do with life, and nothing to do with women.  When you see a group convene, whether it be the state legislature or a hospital board or the Heritage Foundation, count heads and note how many women there are.  And then make sure to note how many women are testifying about women's issues.