By Veronica Strong-Boag and Kelsey Wrightson
While the conservative war against choice is far from new, tactics have evolved. In 2008 Sarah Palin, the vice-presidential candidate for the Republican Party, used the phrase “pink elephants” to describe the newest face of the global war against women, namely female Republicans working within legislative institutions to limit reproductive freedoms. In the United States, conservative campaigners and lawmakers have successfully repealed fertility rights won by champions of women. Beginning with the defunding of Planned Parenthood (first in 1976 with the Hyde Amendment and continuing into the new millennium under George W. Bush [2001-2009]) and following the 2008 global recession with widespread curtailment of state access to abortion, reproductive freedom has been increasingly ‘legislated away.’ That threat was recently exemplified in Texas where bills pushed through a Republican-dominated senate sharply limit access to abortion services, shut down clinics, and changed rules of care to impose medically-unnecessary deterrents. Even the heroic filibuster of Democrat Wendy Davis could not stop the anti-choice tide.
Women such as Senator Kelly Ayotte (Republican New Hampshire), Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota), Lieutenant -Governor Rebecca Clayfish (Republican, Wisconsin), and Florida Attorney-General Republican Pam Bondi are enthusiastically ploughing the anti-choice furrow. They follow generations of Republican women, who, even before the attainment of the franchise, functioned variously as ‘party women,’ GOP officials, or ‘clubwomen’ sympathizers. Applauded by the ‘pro-life’ group, the Susan B Anthony List (a name that invokes a suffrage pioneer but a cause that would have certainly caused that radical proponent of women’s rights apoplexy), today’s pink elephants pit women against women, and endeavor to plaster a female mask on a movement financed and led largely by white men. Although Rymph found female Republicans supporting equality in the past, questions have to be asked regarding the ‘New Right’ and the evident assault on gender equality: why are some women identifying with a conservative movement that threatens their own bodily integrity and what is the impact of their efforts on American anti-choice laws?
Superson identifies both religious and secular reasons for female support of conservative and anti-choice movements. She takes up the now classic arguments of Andrea Dworkin: conservatism promises women protection from supposedly naturally violent men. Given the Right’s insistence that violence and social disintegration are inevitable without traditional marriage and nuclear families, only a retreat to an imagined past can bring women economic and physical safety. Women, in other words, should appreciate that they benefit from tradition’s constraints on the ‘natural’ urges of men. Submission to patriarchal domination is the price they, and not so incidentally their fetuses, must pay for protection. Conservatism itself reaps obvious benefits from women. Not only do they do much of the daily grind of partisanship, they can also make parties appear more inclusive. In return for support, a miniscule group of women receive the bounty and recognition offered Sarah Palin and her sister-travellers.
As evidenced by surging anti-choice legislation in the 21st century, the conservative women’s movement has gained significant power as US lobbyists. Two prominent groups, ‘Women Concerned for America’ and ‘Independent Women’s Forum’, like the Susan B. Anthony List, regularly take the lead in pressing state and federal governments to curtail choice. Such advocates drape themselves in the flag of traditional morality, even as they often deploy Third Wave feminism’s recognition of diversity by claiming to stand for the ‘underrepresented,’ supposedly ‘silent, majority’ (Concerned Women for America). Despite such claims, the narrow range of class and race embodied by the Pink Pachyderms is striking: better-off whites are once again endeavouring to reduce the rights of others.
Combating such opponents sometimes appears to place feminists in a catch-22. On the one hand, fighting among women invokes longstanding misogynistic assumptions about women’s supposed incapacity for rational discourse and ‘team play.’ Ignoring the anti-feminist threat poses other, arguably far more serious, dangers: the welfare of the majority of women is deliberately jeopardized by well-placed and heavily financed zealots in patriarchy’s cause.
The American conflict is not precisely replicated anywhere else in the world, although nations where religious fundamentalism runs riot over women’s bodies offer obvious similarities. If, however, the comparison is to the United Kingdom and Canada, we see the significance of different political structures. Halfmann argues that the party-based parliamentary systems of Canada and Great Britain, unlike the US’s lobby-dominated politics, have marginalized abortion on the national agenda. National medical systems (however compromised) offer another level of difference, and sometimes protection. This is not to suggest, however, that some of the same prejudices don’t inform British and Canadian reactionaries. In Canada, Conservative Party backbenchers have repeatedly attempted to reopen the debate under the guise of preventing ‘sex selective abortion.’ With the appointment of Rona Ambrose, who previously voted against reproductive freedom, as Minister of Health (2013), pro-choice Canadians have to remain vigilant. Feminists also need to scrutinize groups such as R.E.A.L Women, which, while significantly less powerful than its American counterparts, is allied to Focus on the Family, a group with close ties to US evangelical conservatives. Even as they face the reality of the Dominion’s different religious and political make-up, such reactionary forces aspire to be the ‘true north’s’ own elephants, trumpeting the protection of women and western civilization from what an earlier generation of anti-feminists termed the apocalypse of ‘long-haired men and short-haired women.’
Around the world at the dawn of the 21st century, reproductive freedom for women, which has only a bare beginning in many countries, is under assault. That attack is occurring in the midst of a state and international world order confronting unprecedented threats to human survival (over-population and environmental collapse to name only a few) that contribute to rising distress, violence, and determination to protect immediate self-interest. As in wars of every description, symbolic women and their real bodies stand on the firing lines. According to America’s pink brigade and their global counterparts, women need to accept that their interests are served by obedience and acceptance of the ‘natural’ patriarchal order. In the meantime, anti-feminist pink elephants, much like the character of Serena Joy in Margaret Atwood’s dystopic The Handmaid’s Tale (1985) stand by to reap the benefits of defending male privilege. That sorry tale provides a visceral warning of the costs of failing to advocate and entrench reproductive freedom.
“Wave of American Politicians Pushing Abortion out of Reach” in The Globe and Mail, August 23 2012, A8–9.
Angyal, Chloe. “Coverage of Reproductive Rights Features Almost no Reproductive Health Experts,” Feministing, July 11 2013.
Bacchetta, Paola and Margaret Power, eds. Right-Wing Women: From Conservatives to Extremists Around the World, Routledge, New York: 2002.
Blee, Kathleen M. and Sandra McGee Deutsch, eds. Women of the Right, Comparisons and Interplay Across Borders, Pennsylvania State University, USA: 2013
Dusenbery, Maya. “North Carolina Lawmakers Sneakily Add Abortion Restrictions to Motorcyclevagina bill,” Feministing, July 10 2013.
Kilkenny, Allison. “Sixty-Four arrested at ‘Moral Monday’ Abortion Access Protest in North Carolina,” The Nation, July 9 2013.
Marshall, Susan E. “Marilyn vs. Hillary: women’s place in new right politics.” Women & Politics 16.1: 1996, 55-75.
Pike, Robert M. DREW HALFMANN, Doctors and Demonstrators: How Political Institutions Shape Abortion Law in the United States, Britain, and Canada. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2011, 354 p.” (2013): 116-120.
Rommelspacher, Birgit. “Right-Wing ‘Feminism’: a Challenge to Feminism as an Emancipatory Movement.” in Women Citizenship and Difference Yuval-Davis, Nira and Pnina Werbner eds. Zubaan, USA: 2005.
Rymph, Catherine M. Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage through the Rise of the New Right UNC Press, New York: 2006.
Scherieber, Ronnee. Righting Feminism: Conservative women and American Politics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York: 2008.
Spence, Jean. “Palin: ‘Look out for Stampede of Pink Elephants’” Washington Wire, May 14 2010.
Wingrove, Josh. “Conservative MPs rally for renewed abortion debate” The Globe and Mail, May 9, 2013.
In the last decade there has been an explosion of government inquiry into psychiatric disability accompanied by a call for “consumer/client” input into Canada’s mental health initiatives. A few notable examples include the Senate report Out of the Shadows at Last (2006), the Ontario government’s report Navigating the Journey to Wellness (2010), and Canada’s first national mental health strategy Changing Directions, Changing Lives: The Mental Health Strategy for Canada (2012). Despite increased attention to psychiatric disability and calls for “consumer/client” participation, substantial gender analysis is absent from these reports and from broader discussions of psychiatric disability and welfare-state reform. This lack of attention to gender dynamics operating in and through the largely uncoordinated and broadly defined mental health care system may mean that barriers to mad women’s participation are overlooked.
There is a significant body of scholarship exploring women’s opportunities for and barriers to participation in politics and policy making. Women’s locations within prevailing gender relations have a direct impact on opportunities for participation in political decision making (Lister 2003; Iversen and Rosenbluth 2008; Coffé and Bolzendahl 2010). In calling for the participation of psychiatric “client/consumers” in politics and policy making, the structural and attitudinal barriers impacting mad women’s access into policy making must be considered.
Critical disability scholarship provides a starting point for investigating barriers to mad women’s participation in setting the mental health agenda, and in political practices generally. This is the concept of transinstitutionalization. Transinstitutionalization refers to the diffuse operation of services for mad people through governmental and extra-governmental structures such as hospitals, prisons, social housing and income support that developed following deinstitutionalization (Simmons 1990; Stavis 2000; Slovenko 2003; Thakker et al 2007) and crystallized in the era of neoliberal welfare-reform.
In-depth analysis of the gender dynamics of transinstitutionalization has not been conducted, but my preliminary research suggests it is replete with barriers to participation for mad women. For example, as not all supportive housing accepts children, mad women’s housing choices may be limited or they may forgo essential supports in order to parent. The lack of access to the full housing spectrum and/or supportive housing may negatively impact the time and/or support that make political participation possible. Furthermore, as Robert Wilton (2004) demonstrates in his study on Hamilton boarding homes, mad women in boarding homes are less engaged than men in paid labour to subsidize income support. These women, therefore, have less money for transportation, clothing, food, and childcare. This lack of funds may impact opportunities to travel to and engage in political discussion.
These brief examples demonstrate how transinstitutionalization impacts mad women in unique ways that can affect opportunities for participation in policy making. Given calls for participation by the mad community in policy making processes, further research is needed on barriers impacting not only mad women, but all mad people in the context of transinstitutionalization.
 The use of “mad” is a re-appropriation advanced by the mad movement which seeks to promote mad pride, to combat saneism and eradicate psychiatric torture, abuse and incarceration.
Resources and Further Reading
Canada, Parliament. Senate. The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. (2006).Out of the Shadows at Last: Transforming Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada. 38th Parl. 1st Session. Retrieved from: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/391/soci/rep/pdf/rep02may06part1-e.pdf
Coffé, H, and Bolzendahl, C. (2010). Same Game, Different Rules? Gender Differences in Political Participation. Sex Roles. 62(5-6): 318–333
Iversen, T, and Rosenbluth,F. (2008). Work and Power: The Connection Between Female Labor Force Participation and Female Political Representation. Annual Review of Political Science. 11, 479-495.
Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions. (2010). Navigating the Journey to Wellness: The Comprehensive Mental Health and Addictions Action Plan for Ontarians. 39th Parl. 2nd Session. Retrieved from: http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/24008/303884.pdf
Lister, R. (2003). Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives (2nd ed.). New York, N.Y.: New York University Press.
Mental Health Commission of Canada. (2012). Changing Directions, Changing Lives: The Mental Health Strategy for Canada. Retrieved from: http://strategy.mentalhealthcommission.ca/pdf/strategy-images-en.pdf
Simmons, H. (1990). Unbalanced. Toronto, ON: Thompson Education Publishing Inc.
Slovenko, R. (2003). The transinstitutionalization of the mentally ill. Ohio North University Law Review. 29(3), 641-60.
Stavis, P. (2000). Why Prisons are Brim-Full of the Mentally Ill: Is Their Incarceration a Solution or a Sign of Failure. George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal. 11, 157-202.
Thakker Y., Gandhi Z., Sheth H., Vankar G.K., and Shroff S. (2007). Psychiatry Morbidity Among Inmates of the ‘Beggar Home’. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 11 (2), 31-36
Wilton, R. (2004). Putting Policy into Practice: Poverty and People with Serious Mental Illnesses. Social Science & Medicine. 58, 25-39.
In 1931, the women’s movement might have seemed ready for a great leap forward. Legislation providing restricted suffrage had passed a vote in the Lower House of the Diet. Soon enough, however, that victory proved hollow when the bill failed in the Upper House (Mackie 92). Worse was to come. Shortly thereafter the Japanese government had no time for anything but the pursuit of war on the Asian mainland. Japan’s 1933 withdrawal from the League of Nations confirmed the worsening scenario for civil rights generally. Expansionist and militarist Japan nevertheless produced new roles for women. With the majority of the male population at war, more women prolonged their educations, postponed marriage, and entered the work force (Liddle and Nakajima 127).
While the Japanese government remained committed to women’s subordiantion, war dramatically altered gender relations. Common hardship sometimes brought diverse groups of women into new communion.. Pervasive nationalism and xenophobia left, however, no room to reconsider the dominant political regime.
With the end of the war, women found themselves facing dramatically changed circumstances and ideologies. The United States occupation meant the dismantling of Japan’s ‘ie system’, enshrined in the Civil Code of 1898, which confined women to the home and placed the Emperor and the state before the individual.. American General Douglas MacArthur himself considered the authority of male heads of households as “’feudalistic’ (McClain 549). The entire Japanese community now had to make sense of democracy on the American model. .
Lieutenant Ethel Weed, an American Women’s Information Officer, brought civil code reform to the forefront in Japan through government-sponsored mass media, such as the weekly “Women’s Hour” radio program, which hosted round table discussions on political concerns (Tsuchiya 145). On December 17th, 1945 Japanese women were granted the right to vote (McClain 529). Prior to the 1946 election, the first in which women voted in Japanese history, Weed toured the nation, sponsoring talks on women’s issues and urging their exercise of voting rights (Tsuchiya 149).
67% of eligible women voted. Thirty-nine were elected to the House of Representatives where they represented 8.4 percent of members, a proportion that has not been equaled since (Mackie 124).
Liddle, Joanna and Sachiko Nakajima. Rising Suns, Rising Daughters: Gender, Class and Power in Japan. New York: Zed Books, 2000.
Mackie, Vera. Feminism in Modern Japan: Citizenship, Embodiment and Sexuality. Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 2003.
McClain, James L. Japan: A Modern History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2002.
Tsuchiya, Yuka. “Democratizing the Japanese Family: The Role of the Civil Information and Education Section in the Allied Occupation 1945-1952”. The Japanese Journal of American Studies. No. 5 (1993-1994): 137-162.