The last year has been a pretty triumphant one for women, particularly in politics: Single women were key to Obama winning a second term (apparently "binders full of women" voted for him rather than the other guy); a record number of women got elected to Congress, free birth control kicked in, and the electorate made clear that comments about "legitimate," "emergency," and divinely-ordained rape will almost definitely lose you elections. Hell yes.
In honor of International Women's Day 2013, we've gathered some of our favorite Mother Jones coverage of women's issues from the past year, in politics and beyond. We've covered some intriguing history, built some fun interactives and charts, and, of course, been all over the serious policy stories, too:
Women in Congress: After the 2012 election, we charted the record-breaking gains made by women of the 113th Congress, including four states that elected their first female senators, and New Hampshire's all-female congressional delegation—a national first.
Women in sports: Politics wasn't the only area where women have been on a roll. Forty years after Title IX, women have made extraordinary gains in athletics, with participation at the college level increasing by over 600 percent. And while the playing field is still far from level, as our Title IX charts showed, female Olympians kicked some serious ass in the 2012 games.
Birth control: When Rick Santorum and some of his GOP colleagues claimed that birth control basically grows on trees, we made a birth control calculator showing just how much contraceptives can cost (pre-Obamacare) over the span of a woman's child-bearing years. Not pretty, even with insurance.
Just a month later, Rush Limbaugh spent three days railing on Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke, starting "the national conversation about sluts of 2012" and raising a burning question: Who, exactly, qualifies as a "slut"? We gave inquiring women the chance to find out for themselves, with this handy slut flowchart.
Recalling the dark ages: After Todd Akin-gate, Mother Jones documented the age-old tradition of men defining rape, from the dudes behind the Code of Hammurabi to tough guys at the FBI. We also traced some intriguing theories about female "hysteria" and some of the toys and bulky contraptions used to "treat" it. A lot less amusing was the look we took back at a not-so-distant time when women, lacking proper access or knowledge of birth control, used Lysol to stay baby-free.
Abortion: Recently, MoJo reporter Kate Sheppard met some of the country's most fervent abortion supporters and foes. She wrote about the small, tireless team operating Mississippi's last abortion clinic, and interviewed the late Dr. George Tiller's assistant, Julie Burkhart, as she readied his old Wichita clinic for reopening this spring. Earlier last year, Sheppard profiled Americans United for Life, which is quickly becoming one of the most successful pro-life organizations in the country.
The so-called morning-after pill has exploded in popularity since it was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration 15 years ago. According to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 5.8 million American women used emergency contraception (EC) between 2006 and 2010. Nearly a quarter of sexually active women ages 20 through 24 have used it.
All told, 11 percent of fertile, sexually active women said they had used EC, whereas back in 2002, the last time CDC surveyed women, only 4 percent had.
While more people are using EC, what's most interesting is who is using it and how. For instance, only 5 percent of women over 30 have used it. And most who have say they have only done so once—a rebuttal to the stereotype that the morning-after pill is enabling women to be irresponsible hussies.
EC is still a source of controversy. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services ruled that Plan B One Step could be sold to women under 17 only by prescription, despite the FDA's determination that it is safe for all women who are old enough to bear children. HHS cited safety concerns, but reproductive rights and scientific advocacy groups accused the Obama administration of playing politics on the issue.
Jamaica Kincaid's office at Claremont-McKenna college, where she is a literature professor, is filled with hints of her political leanings. There's an Obama mug, a statuette of the Lincoln memorial, and—"just for provocation," she insists—a miniature bust of Karl Marx. When I showed up to interview her a few weeks before the election, and the topic inevitably arose, Kincaid paused abruptly and looked down at her outfit in mock horror. "I'm not wearing my Obama T-shirt!" she exclaimed. "I rushed out of the house! This is serious—it's a talisman. I wear it every day."
Her political sensibilities are not surprising, given the prominence of class and racein her work, not to mention her personal history. Born Elaine Potter Richardson in colonial Antigua, Kincaid came to the United States at 16, sent by her cash-strapped family to work as an au pair in Scarsdale, the tony New York City suburb. By 25, Kincaid had landed a staff writer job at The New Yorker, where she would remain for 20 years. Now 63, she has churned out a dozen books—including Annie John, Mr. Potter, and Autobiography of My Mother—hauled in countless awards, and, to top it off, has stayed startlingly hip: She's hooked on Game of Thrones and Homeland, and when her cellphone goes off, the ringtone is Jay-Z and Kanye's "Ni**as in Paris."
Out next week, her new book, See Now Then, reveals just how current she really is. Her first novel in nearly a decade, it is very loosely based on the dissolution of her marriage to composer Allen Shawn (son of William, former editor of The New Yorker.) It's a stark, modern anatomy of married life that packs in everything from a cross-dressing neighbor to a Nintendo-junkie son. In our wide-ranging chat, Kincaid talked about her motherly shortcomings, converting to Judaism, and her brief career singing backup for a celebrity drag queen.
The state that brought you SB 1070, perhaps the harshest immigration law in the nation, is at it again with a bill that could bring illegal immigrant-hunting into new territory: hospitals.
Proposed last week by Republican state Rep. Steve Smith, HB 2293 would require hospital workers to verify the immigration status of uninsured people seeking care. They'd have to make note of any undocumented patient, and then call the police.
Speaking outside the Arizona capitol on Thursday, Rep. Smith called it simply "a data-collection bill" to figure out how much Arizona is spending on illegal immigrant care, promising that no one would be denied treatment or deported once their status is disclosed.
Neither of these guarantees is mentioned anywhere in the bill, but co-sponsor Rep. Carl Seel told Arizona's KPHO that hospitals wouldn't deny treatment, since "we're a benevolent nation."
If enacted, the bill could scare immigrants away from getting medical attention. Nationwide, the undocumented are already far less likely to seek health care. Advocates say the low rate is partially explained by a fear that they'll be reported to authorities. This law would do little to lighten such distrust: It doesn't explain what police should or can do with the data flowing in from hospitals. When he was asked whether law enforcement would show up to hospitals when notified, Smith's response was: "We have no clue."
Ostensibly, doctors wouldn't have to juggle providing care and phoning the cops; the bill makes it clear that other hospital employees should handle the bill's requirements. Still, the state's hospitals are pushing back. Pete Wertheim, a spokesman for the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, says that with more than 3 million patients each year, the rules would be impossible to implement with current budgets and staffing. He also points out that if the law deterred immigrants with communicable diseases—think tuberculosis—from seeking treatment, it could endanger everyone in the state.
The bill is still in early stages, and hasn't yet made it to committee. And if precedent is any indicator, it's not likely to pass: Rep. Smith has introduced similar bills before, with little success. Laws he proposed last year that would have implemented immigration checks at schools and hospitals both failed in the Senate.
Amidst a busy week at the Mother Jones San Francisco office, five of us gathered late-night, burritos in hand, to watch a sneak preview of Season 2 of Girls. Despite all being twentysomethings and female, not all of us feel like we can identify with main characters Hannah (Lena Dunham), Marnie (Allison Williams), Jessa (Jemima Kirke), Shoshanna (Zosia Mamet), and the others portrayed in this series about friendship, sex, and ambition in New York City. (Zaineb Mohammed warned us at the start that she hate-watches the show.) Nevertheless, we couldn't let DC-based film critic and infamous naysayer Asawin Suebsaeng be the sole proprieter of MoJo's critical take on Girls. (See his takedown of Season 1, former MoJo fellow Maya Dusenbery's response, and his slightly less acidic takedown of Season 2—though he still considers the show "a crime against humanity." Really, Swin?)
We weren't blown away by the first episode. But sit tight. The series gets better—full of sharp dialogue and humor, awkward intimacy, experimentation with love and drugs, and self-realization or lack thereof—by the fourth episode. Swin thought some of those less glamorous moments came off sleepy: We felt that, even when imperfect, they were thought-provoking—and, at the very least, refreshing. (As Sarah Zhang put it: "Yes, thank you, awkward parties!"). And as you'll see below, the show is fodder for great debate, which in itself makes it worth a view. (Warning: minor spoilers sprinkled throughout).