Merle Hoffman

Merle Hoffman is the publisher/editor-in-chief of On The Issues Magazine and one of the most outspoken advocates for progressive and feminist issues.

Merle established Choices Women’s Medical Center to provide abortion services shortly after New York State legalized abortion in 1971. Today, Choices has grown to become one of the most comprehensive and nationally well respected providers of a full range of gynecological services for women, including abortion to 24 weeks of pregnancy, birth control and pre-natal care.

In 1983 Merle began On the Issues Magazine as a newsletter of Choices Women’s Medical Center to communicate with other health care providers, pro-choice activists and the reproductive health care community generally. Within a few years it had developed into On the Issues, the Progressive Woman’s Quarterly, gaining accolades as a motivating, challenging and controversial magazine of ideas and action. After ceasing publication in 1999, On the Issues Magazine was reborn as an online publication in Spring 2008 and publishes all-new, themed editions quarterly with new articles added weekly.

Biography from MerleHoffman.com (via Viva la Feminista)

How and when did you develop your passion for fighting for reproductive rights and women’s health in general?

The process was very organic and came to me from the “ground up”. There was no such thing as “women’s health” when I started at 25 years old in 1971. New York had de-criminalized abortion three years before Roe. V. Wade-and the first patient that came to Choices was a married woman from New Jersey. She came to New York because abortion was still illegal in that state. I stayed with her –counseled her, held her hand throughout her abortion–and that profound intimate powerful connection was what catalyzed me thru these last 40 years.

My commitment, passion an radicalism was born of the deepest experience.

It seems that many young women today don’t always have a lot of perspective about our reproductive rights. How do you think things have changed in terms of the reproductive rights battle since you started CHOICES Women’s Medical Center in 1971? Where have we advanced and where do we still lag behind?

We have advanced to the point where many young women view reproductive rights as an entitlement. There is an a-historical view that abortion rights are there-have always been as far as they can remember-and will remain so. Because of this it is necessary for the veterans of the struggles to educate, and insure that young women-all women understand that freedom is not free–that if we don’t defend reproductive rights will lose them. We have to be aware awake and active in countering the relentless assaults from the right.

Considering the controversial nature of abortion and reproductive rights, how have you responded to critics of your work? What major challenges have you faced because of your work and how did you work through them?

There are so many critics. I usually tell them to “take a number–that the line forms to the left!” There have always been and will always be opposition to me my work-and the struggle for reproductive freedom and justice. This is a long term power struggle and one has to not take it all that personally. I understand that I am a lighting rod for much of the misogynistic hatred-but it comes with the territory. And ultimately it is my belief in the justice and rightness of reproductive freedom that keeps me going.

You were on the frontlines of the women’s health movement from its inception. Do you still believe there is still systemic sexism in health training / the health industry? What should teens and young women be aware of in terms of their health care? What do you think are the most important questions teens can ask when visiting their doctors or other healthcare professionals?

At this point in time there is very little if any training in both family planning and abortion care in most of the medical schools in this country. In fact the group Medical Students for Choice is involved in attempting to integrate this training in medical school curriculums. The right wing anti-choice-anti-birth control movement has been quite effective in insuring that if abortion is not illegal–they will make it impossible for a majority of American women.

Years ago I developed the concept of PATIENT POWER–when I realized that the power differential between patients(women and girls) and doctors (mainly men) resulted in many women experiencing unwanted pregnancies-because of doctors mis-information, or lack of it.

Patient power postulated things like the right to question your doctor, the right to be informed of alternative treatments, the right to second opinions, etc. It actually was the precursor of what is now known as the Patient’s Bill of Rights.

Now we have resources which were not available 40 years ago–publications like Our  Bodies Our Selves which we have to take advantage of- We are responsible for our own health and have to insure that we are educated and knowledgeable–we should work to become partners with our physicians not remain passive dependant children.

You recently wrote a memoir – Intimate Wars. Can you speak a little about what motivated you to write it and what you think young feminists specifically might take away from it?

I was coming up on the 40th anniversary of Choices-which was quite a milestone. I needed to look back on the whirlwind of my life, to reflect and create a narrative not only for myself but for my daughter. She had not shared the majority of it–I would not share a majority of hers so I wanted to leave that testament for her. The lessons to be learned are many–how to gain and practice courage, how to keep going when all the world tells you its impossible, how to deal with being alone and being a pariah, what the real cost of political struggle and being a radical is, how nothing and no one can protect you, that you have to become your own support system.

And finally, as I have been and am on the forefront this struggle,  I hope this book is an inspiration to young women. I hope it encourages them to have the courage to follow their hearts because revolution at its core is driven by love.

The only funny/entertaining thing to come from this movie

Have you seen the trailer for “The Vow”? If you haven’t, go watch it. But, be warned, you may vomit.

In the film, a loving couple’s lives are destroyed after a car accident gives the wife amnesia therefore the husband must make her fall back in love with him. “The Vow” has all the ingredients for the perfect, cringe-inducing romance movie: a stunning couple, their flawless relationship, and a tragic incident that tears them apart. The only thing it seems to be missing is that it isn’t based off of a book by Nicholas Sparks.

Romance movies are, to put it lightly, just not my thing (full disclosure: I do have a soft spot for “When Harry Met Sally” but really, who doesn’t?) I hate how generally unrealistic they are, how they portray people as goon-eyed love freaks, how sappy they are, and how there is such an element of drama.

I am not against the fantasy of films. I think that movies are a great escape from reality and that they all create idealistic worlds. But romance movies take that idea too far. They create an entirely new universe, one that I don’t wish to be a part of.

I do not want to be written a letter every day. I do not want somebody to show up at my door confessing their secret desire for me. I do not want to be woken up at 3am with a boombox playing a stupid song. And I most definitely do not want to kiss in the rain. I prefer to stay dry, thank you very much.

So please, Hollywood, can we make a deal and stop making these horribly cheesy, unrealistic romance movies? Let’s start showing the funnier aspects of love and life, the most reasonable things that happen that people can relate to. Let’s erase this genre of movies that seem to always require a box of tissues and chocolate. I surely will not miss them.

Seeker Lover Keeper

There an awful lot of acoustic bands that come around these days. Oftentimes it’s hard to differentiate between them (largely because there’s a factory somewhere that makes most of them). But don’t lose faith! Sometimes good ones come along. They have brilliant lyrics and are incredibly heartfelt. Speaking of good acoustic bands, how bout that Seeker Lover Keeper!

There’s a very bizarre phenomena that happens in the American music scene where a lot of times, bands that have enormous success in other countries fail to even get mentioned in any conversations. That’s why you haven’t heard of Seeker Lover Keeper despite their debut album going gold over in Australia (and Australia’s developed a great music scene! Angus & Julia Stone, The Temper Trap, Cut Copy just to name a few).

Wikipedia describes them as a super-group, which is true in the actual definition of the word, each of the three ladies in the group have careers outside the group, but it doesn’t seem right to call a group that makes sentimental, smart acoustic songs a super-group. Semantics aside, the band is composed of Sarah Blasko, Sally Seltman, Hally Throsby. Between the three of them, they have toured with Lykke Li, Broken Social Scene, and have done lyrical work for some of Feist’s material. I guess you could probably get away with the term “super” with a resume like that. Not to mention the album was produced by Victor Van Vugt who also produced some PJ Harvey tracks and Nick Cave stuff.

They’ve received positive press reviews from places like The Couch Sessions, Spinner, and Folk Radio (because they’re good). So check them out!

Even Though I’m A Woman

We Will Know What It Is

Seeker Lover Keeper on iTunes:

Meryl Streep and Margaret Thatcher

Being the avid history nerd that I am, I was basically counting down the minutes until the opening of Iron Lady, the new film chronicling Margaret Thatcher’s life, starring Meryl Streep. I mean, what could be better than Meryl Streep (who is awesomeness in human form) taking on a complex, fascinating character like Prime Minister Thatcher, right? Regardless of your politics, Margaret Thatcher’s story is an exciting one.

I was expecting a few things from the film. First, I was expecting a kick-butt performance from Ms. Streep. Second, I was expecting to learn more about Margaret Thatcher’s political and personal story, since I don’t know that much about her. Third, I was expecting to be thoroughly entertained.

Unfortunately, only one of my three expectations was really fulfilled. Meryl Streep’s performance was above and beyond what I had hoped for. She did an incredible job conveying subtle aspects of Margaret Thatcher’s character, and portraying her throughout at different ages. I also just have to give props to Meryl Streep for taking on this role and helping to bring to light the story of a political trailblazer.

Sadly, I feel the film didn’t give Meryl Streep much of a chance to delve into certain aspects of Thatcher’s character. The film touched on events that occurred during Thatcher’s time as Prime Minister, but glossed over many.

I wanted to see more explanation of how Thatcher came to believe in her conservative politics, whether she ever questioned them, and how she became interested in politics in the first place.The film alludes to Thatcher’s early ambitions with a scene where she dreamily watches her politically active father deliver a speech, but skips over Thatcher’s time at Oxford, showing us her run for Parliament before we know why or when she became interested in politics.

Instead the film focuses mainly on Thatcher’s life as an old woman, after her husband has died, as she is beginning to lose her mind. In most of the movie, Thatcher is coping with the loss of her husband. She hallucinates that he is with her when he is, in fact, dead, and for most of the film refuses to throw out his belongings.

At the end of the film, she finally lets her hallucinations go, as she imagines her husband walking out the door. However, this is done with much crying and saying that she is scared to be alone. I thought the film’s choice to include these hallucinations was especially interesting, as it highlighted Thatcher’s dependency on her male counterpart, rather than focusing on her independent strength.

One positive aspect of this portrayal is that it debunks the idea that Margaret Thatcher was, well, an Iron Lady. Showing Thatcher as vulnerable and reliant on her husband humanizes her to some extent. However, it frustrates me that it is necessary to portray a female leader as dependent on her husband to humanize her or make her seem likeable.

I found myself wishing that the film had focused on a stronger, more independent Thatcher, rather than trying to make her hard exterior soft on the edges.

Maybe it’s because I can be a bit of an iron lady myself sometimes, but I think Thatcher would have been even more likeable and relatable, had more of her firmness and independence been portrayed. I was expecting a lot from this film, and frankly, I left somewhat disappointed. While I commend Streep and the others who worked on this film for highlighting the life of such an interesting woman, I hope that someday filmmakers will not feel the need to soften such a powerful character simply because of her gender.

Pass.

“Let me buy you dinner,” he said with a smile. He looked at me with confidence. He was close to me in age, and handsome. His actions were presumably innocent. On the surface, there was no reason for me to refuse. He thought he was simply asking me on a date, but it implied a deeper meaning.

He didn’t phrase his proposal as a question, but I still had a choice. I could say yes and smile endearingly; I could take the sandwich he wanted to buy me and thank him for his generosity. But I knew that if I wanted to live with myself, the answer would be no. I could not carry on as a hypocrite. I could not relinquish my self-respect for a sandwich.

“Why?” I asked him. He was uneasy now. There was a possibility that I was going to turn down his advance. “Well,” he ventured, “I was hoping we could eat together. And you know…you’re a girl. If I’m in your company, I have to pay for you.”

He seemed so clueless. There was no reason he couldn’t just ask me to sit with him. I didn’t want to be rude, but I needed to make my point. I wanted him to see that I was as capable of caring for myself as he was. “Thank you for the offer, but I’ll pay for myself.” I turned to the cashier, “Can I get that to go please?”

The cashier’s scowl conveyed her annoyance. She didn’t see me as a person standing up for my right to equality and self-determination. She saw a stuck up, unappreciative girl. She silently handed me the sandwich and my change. I took both and made for the exit.

I am expected to adhere to a set of unwritten rules that men are not subject to. From an early age I was taught that the meaning in my life would come from the man I marry. The law says that I am allowed to work, but if I dedicate all of my energy to bettering myself instead of caring for others, I am considered unfeeling and selfish. If a man makes the same decision he is applauded. Double standards are rampant in this society. People cling to twisted traditions. I am going to take a different road. I want to use my talents to change the world. I won’t be lulled into just settling down with someone exceptional – I am going to be exceptional. And I won’t let a few admonishing glances get in my way.

Recently, I participated, in a willing, great hook-up. The week before I participated in a willing make-out session. I just moved to a new town. I don’t know anyone around here that well, and the unfortunate thing about that is that I don’t know who knows who — for instance how close hook-up A is to hook-up B. This is where my story really starts.

Let’s call the two guys I’ve hooked up with Boy A and Boy B. Boy A had a crush on me. Since I had only known him for about a week, I assumed it was casual. I was wrong. At some point during our short time together, he decided we were in a relationship. Now, we’re talking about a guy that I’ve probably seen four times in my life and who I never told I was interested in being in a relationship. This is where Boy B steps in.

I had met Boy B the week before and found him attractive. The next week I saw him at a party and we began talking about Lord of The Rings, Zombies and Star Wars. Clearly, I was interested. One thing led to another and we hooked up. The next day I texted Boy A and he responded by saying (and I quote): “I heard Boy B jack-hammered your crotch last night…yikes.”

Despite his triggering, offensive, misogynistic language, I responded. I told him that it was unfair of him to assume that there was something solid between us. I told him not to deny my sexuality and not to hold me to double standards. What he said back was this: “Stop bothering me you dumb whore.” I decided to just say nothing, to not give him the satisfaction of knowing just how much his texts had gotten to me. But I was so upset and angry. I felt disgusting, like a pile of trash, and I know that’s what he wanted me to feel like.

I have my theories why I felt this way. It has been a little over a year since I was pinned down and raped in my own bed. The “Jack-hammered your crotch” comment just sounded so violent, so rapey, that every time I think about it I am disgusted. My stomach literally clenches and I feel sick. The term whore made me feel low, like maybe I’m wrong for liking sex as much as men, maybe I am worthless, maybe I should be used for sex, maybe that’s all I’m good for. For the first time, I understood how much it hurts to be called a whore or a slut or a skank – whatever the term may be – or to have you sexuality questioned. Even after attending Slut Walks, being an active feminist, knowing about rape culture and understanding the effects of slut-shaming, I lost myself in the idea that maybe being a slut was a bad thing, that maybe I had been wrong all along. My entire belief structure had come into question because of one jerk.

Then I remembered the day I lost my virginity. The day I had sex for the first time, it was not to a guy who was my boyfriend. Some of you may call that slutty, but I knew that I wanted to have sex. At that moment, there was nothing more that I wanted, and when it happened, I regretted nothing. But I also remember thinking that no one would understand, that if I told, I’d be called a whore and a liar. And there was that word again: whore. The word that people use to control our sexuality, to dismiss us from sexual pleasure, to dismiss our claims of sexual assault, to dismiss our humanity.

We live in a country where tens of thousands of sexual assault cases are reported every year. And who really knows how many go unreported. I think this all goes back to the word “whore,” to the idea that women do not have sex for ourselves but for male attention, because we have low self esteem, because we have daddy issues, because we want to be popular, or because we’re just plain crazy.

It starts in our first health class. We learn that boys masturbate more than girls (or is it just that boys talk about it more because it is considered more socially acceptable for them to pleasure themselves?) In our high school health classes, we are told that the only way to be safe is to remain abstinent, that if we wait until marriage, sex will be so much better. We are taught about blow jobs, but the blessing that is cunnilingus is never mentioned. We learn about male ejaculation, not about female. Every day we are shown how cool Robert Downey Jr. is for remaining a swinger throughout his career, and on the same channel told that Miley Cyrus looks like a slut in her video.

As a gender we have been dismissed. Slut is not our word. It is the word of our oppressors. It is a word they use because the idea of female sexuality does not fit their conservative view points. But I’m going to fight that now. I’m going to say:

Dear Guy A, I love sex. I choose to love sex. I choose to have sex with whomever I want. I am great in bed and I am proud of that. I look amazing naked and yeah that makes me feel really confident and sexy. Sex is my choice. So if liking sex, and liking frequent sex, and liking experimenting with new partners makes me a slut in your mind, then so be it. I am a huge slut. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Ani DiFranco

After 20 years in the music biz, self-described “Little Folksinger” Ani DiFranco is still technically little, although her influence on fellow musicians, activists, and indie-minded people the world over has been huge. She still proudly identifies as a folksinger, too, but her understanding of that term has always been far more expansive than a bin at the record store or a category on iTunes, with ample room for soul, funk, jazz, electronic music, spoken word, and a marching band or two. Over the course of more than 20 albums, including the live double CD Living in Clip (1997) and the two-disc career retrospective Canon (2007), as well as the latest one, ¿Which Side are You On? (2012), Ani has never stopped evolving, experimenting, testing the limits of what can be said and sung. Her lifelong tribe of co-conspirators includes everyone from Pete Seeger and the late Utah Phillips to a new generation of twentysomething singer-songwriters who grew up with her songs and shows — and then there’s the motley crew of folks like Prince, Maceo Parker, Andrew Bird, Dr. John, Arto Lindsay, Bruce Springsteen, Chuck D, the Buffalo Philharmonic, Gillian Welch, Cyndi Lauper, and even Burmese activist and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, with whom she has crossed paths in a myriad of ways.

Born in Buffalo, New York in 1970, Ani spent part of her twenties in New York City, then returned to her hometown where she established first a business office and then a performance venue called Babeville as the twentieth century ground to a halt and the twenty-first one revved up. For much of the last decade she’s been based in New Orleans — but at her core she’s always seen herself as “a traveler,” covering pretty much the four corners of the earth by now, both solo and with her band. (There’s less corner-covering these days, now that she’s consciously slowing down a bit and raising a daughter with partner and co-producer Mike Napolitano, but she still gets around just fine, playing venues like Madison Square Garden for Pete Seeger’s ninetieth birthday bash and another star-studded lineup at the Beacon Theater in Manhattan for Wavy Gravy’s seventy-fifth.)

Early in her career, Ani made a choice that is now so obvious to so many people that it’s hard to remember it was once considered brazen: to say no to every record label deal that came her way, and yes to being her own boss. That decision has earned her plenty of attention over the years, but it has never been what brought sold-out crowds to her shows around the world, fans debating every nuance of her lyrics, and fellow performers clamoring to work with her. No, all that has more to do with another choice she made early in life: To use her voice and her guitar as honestly and unflinchingly as she could, writing and playing songs that came straight from her own experience, her boundless imagination, her sharp wit, and her ever-more-nuanced understanding of how the world works. She did it in noisy bars with nothing but a shaved head and a lone guitar in 1990, and she’s doing it with renewed intensity today.

via Righteous Babe

¿Which Side Are You On?

FREE DOWNLOAD OF ¿Which Side Are You On? FOR FBOMB READERS

Ani DiFranco on iTunes: