Family Values

Maybe it's me, but "family values" means a whole lot different to the Tea Party, the Heritage Foundation and groups that actually have the words "family" and/or "values" in their names than it does to me.  I think of family values in terms of valuing families -- being sure that children have proper nutrition and a secure roof over their heads, including in school, where there should be heat in the winter and no water leaking from said roof.  And of course a decent education followed by a job that provides a living wage for a good day of work, and decent benefits, like sick leave and health insurance to provide for the children.  See, it's like a cycle.

But the folks that brag about their family values today tend to be the ones that do not value the families of those with less wealth and power than they have.  And then try to justify those other children and families doing without all that fine stuff with nonsense about killing jobs and creating debt that their children will have to pay off.

And when they say they don't want their children to have to pay off the nation's debt, they really mean their children -- not yours.

So in that atmosphere, forget about daycare, we have to fight for the adequacy of our schools.  And where far too many workers barely subsist on minimum wage, our government is convinced that the way out of debt is to continue to pay off big farms and cut food stamps.

So it comes as no surprise to learn that with all the talk about being "pro-life," pregnant women continue to be discriminated against at work.  Given jobs that jeopardize their health, limited sick leave, forced to take unpaid leave or terminated when they are unable to continue to do their job.

The ACLU and its New York chapter worked to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in New York City, which was signed into law on October 2 by Mayor Bloomberg.  As you can imagine, getting this law to go anywhere in our current Congress will be a fight.  It was introduced in 2012, and reintroduced this year.

The ACLU is asking for our support, in signing a petition to Congress to pass a Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.  Please sign, and spread the word.  And be sure to let our representatives know that all that talk about family values is just hot air without passing legislation that truly supports families.

And while we're at it, I'm thinking we should get our own legislators here in South Carolina to pass its own Pregnant Workers Fairness Act; maybe those who feel the need to safeguard pregnancy could do something more constructive than force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

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.

On the Subject of Violence

Congress continues to nitpick the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.  They apparently don't want to go overboard in protecting women.

On Sunday's Up with Chris (Hayes), there was a discussion about this Act and the nitpicking.  Sarah Deer, a tribal law specialist, explained that as the law currently stands, violence against women on a reservation can only be pursued and prosecuted by the tribal government if the accused is a member of the reservation.  And, unsurprisingly, when he is not a member of the reservation, federal prosecutors rarely follow up.  Or he gets what is known around here as a free pass.

Imagine the absurd logic:  if you invite someone into your home who happens to be from another state (or country) and he beats you up, your police force cannot arrest him, your prosecutors cannot try him, and his state of origin ignores the complaint.

Words fail me.