I'm not shocked at this at all. The way that most of america relates to pregnancy is as a disability. For example, my work refuses to offer maternity leave (their reasoning is that it's unfair to those who don't have kids, which sounds insane to me), but you can you use your temporary disability leave for your pregnancy.

It really upsets me that we have cast procreation is a disability. What upsets me even more is that most feminist groups are either unable or unwilling to come to a strong consensus about what to about it because we are so afraid of doing anything that would cast all women as "breeders."

I don't know, but it seems like time for feminists to step about this. Procreation is a feminist issue, even it doesn't relate to lives of all women.

I think that it is a good idea to allow women access to closer parking spaces -- but they shouldn't necessarily be labeled "handicapped." A lot of CVS stores have both handicapped spaces near the entrance AND spaces specifically labeled for expecting mothers. Perhaps spaces like this should be required in more public places.

If it did pass, the people who want to outlaw abortion would basically be forcing women to become disabled. How awful would that be?

Besides, considering being pregnant is something women's bodies are designed to do, it would be pretty ludicrous to call it a "disability."

There are really two issues here, the nomenclature issue (what do we call people with a different-than-standard set of abilities?) and the pregnancy issue.

My wife's just starting her third trimester, and I don't think she'd find it infantalizing for the law to recognize the physical limitations her pregnancy is placing on her.

It's not infantalizing to give a temporary tag to someone with a broken leg, after all.

foxglove:

I think that it is a good idea to allow women access to closer parking spaces -- but they shouldn't necessarily be labeled "handicapped." A lot of CVS stores have both handicapped spaces near the entrance AND spaces specifically labeled for expecting mothers. Perhaps spaces like this should be required in more public places.

The fundamental purpose of slots labeled "handicapped parking only" is to make life substantially more livable for people who have difficulty traversing covering much distance. There are a lot of reasons how this could happen, from injury to pregnancy to genetic defect, and it's senseless to split up the segments preventing people with one reason for using slots for a person with another reason, especially given the massive underutilization as it is.

Samhita:

I just have a problem with calling people "disabled" and to extend that category to pregnant women.

A lot of men treat women like they are disabled already...trying to not let us lift boxes, open doors, or put together Ikea furniture. I just assumed pregnancy would make it worse.

I remember discussing in some class how pregnant women can often be fired, just for being pregnant or for missing work due to the pregnancy, and some advocates were trying to get pregnancy classified as a temporary disability, because it would be illegal for the employers to fire someone for missing work due to a disability. Is that applicable for this situation? Should there be another classification to protect pregnant women from discrimination?

interesting...well, i see the point about pregnancy hardly being a disability as it is necessary for society to continue and a normal capability of women's bodies...

however, it seems like this would be a step in the right direction of recognizing that pregnancy does in fact come with limitations and that women should not be penalized while performing reproductive labor.

it seems like a stretch to get from parking hassels to tackeling employment discrimination and policies, but maybe its a start...

I think that parking should be thought of as "mobility-impaired" parking. I am a person with a disability (or a disabled person, or whatever the term du jour is), but I don't need special parking spaces because I am able to move about quite easily-- my disability isn't related to movement.

However, my personal preference in this matter would be that we remove the stigma from the words "disabled" and "handicapped" (whether applicable temporarily or long-term), rather than discard these terms. I've never really thought of them as infantilizing, but then again I was raised by two disabled people...*

I don't mind telling people I have a disability, I'm not ashamed about it, and to be described in that way isn't that big a deal to me, anymore than someone saying I am tall, white, nerdy, or whatever. It's just part of the package that is me.

Just my $.02,
Amy

*Mom has a hearing impairment, and my father was hurt in a car wreck and his injuries permanently affected his mobility.

Interesting issue of dissonance. I see (generally) two possible outcomes of such a law:

1) Pregnant women become more "othered" or "different" because they are viewed as disabled;

2) Because almost everyone knows someone who is/was pregnant, the massive influx of pregnant women into the "disabled" category serves to IMPROVE attitudes towards disability law in general. IOW, it breaches the us/them divide quite effectively.

Personally, I would suspect #2 to be more likely, which is why i'm not sure that this law would be such a bad thing.

This is interesting. I think pregnant women are certainly less physically able than non-pregnant people, so I think really my only problem with this would be that being disabled is considered a bad thing. I don't want for pregnant women to be thought less of. I agree with Amy.

Amy has just said what I signed in to say: don't change the word: fix the stigma. There is nothing whatsoever insulting about giving better or priority access to people who have a greater need for it.

I haven't ever been pregnant, but if/when I am, I would greatly appreciate mobility priority over people not carrying the weight of an extra person on a bipedal frame.

First of all, I hate the stereotype that pregnant women can't walk across the parking lot. While I know some women who have had disabling conditions in pregnancy (sciatica, back problems), most women I know, including myself, were quite capable of walking. In fact, i went on a long walk right before I went in to labor with my 2nd.

That said, some pregnant women do need to be accomodated. I don't see this as equating pregnancy with disability, as much as using the existing legal structures to make the accomodations. It's similar to using disability insurance to cover maternity leave.

I would love to see a more progressive attitude toward procreation (like universal paid maternity leaves), rather than using disability laws to patchwork something together. But until that happens, I don't object to the efforts to expand these rights in this fashion.

Amy has just said what I signed in to say: don't change the word: fix the stigma. There is nothing whatsoever insulting about giving better or priority access to people who have a greater need for it.

I haven't ever been pregnant, but if/when I am, I would greatly appreciate mobility priority over people not carrying the weight of an extra person on a bipedal frame.

This is a case of over analyzing a term applied to a situation. The bill was designed to help people in a very real physical problem. The word was used because the pregnancy would carry the same rights that other disabilities do, irregardless of whether pregnancy is a disability itself. Change the word to anything that you would find appropriate and it would achieve the same goals. I doubt the label was a sign that the large of society thinks that pregnant women are incapable of other things outside of the physical aspects.

Though, I do find the use of the label "temporary handicap" as a method to legally block the termination of pregnant women an interesting one.

I see the attempt to classify third-trimester pregnant women as temporarily disabled as a way to use the existing legal structure to offer protections for what is a common, but temporary situation. Sure, it doesn't work completely, and may create probs with terminology and perception, but at least the intention is to offer more protections/support to women.

I think many women have a distorted view of what their legal protections are when pregnant. For instance, pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is NOT recognized in all states. The Family Leave Act only applies to employers with a certain number of employees, so many of us (myself included, and I'm a damn lawyer) have NO guarantee that we won't be demoted, lose seniority, or simply be replaced during a maternity leave.

Actually, short-term disability insurance is often used to provide compensation for women who miss work due to pregnancy.

I think that the law is fine. Do you think it is stigmatizing for a person to give up his or her seat on a bus for a very pregnant woman? Pregnancy can wreak havoc on a body, and recognizing that isn't a bad thing.

Amy - I'm with you on the word disabled being fine. Personally when I hear the term I don't think "This person has something wrong with them" so much as "This person has extra challenges to deal with." But I realize a lot of people see it the other way, unfortunately.

I think it's ridiculous to reclassify pregnancy as a disability. It is a physical condition for which the average human body is designed (Notwithstanding some health conditions and lack of desire to do so, both of which apply to me.) Deeming it to be something incapacitating just harks unpleasantly back to the bad ol' days of confining pregnant women to their beds, as their delicate condition preclude, well, everything.

I know in terms of parking, it is possible for pregnant women to get temporary handicapped permits as it is, if necessary.

So I personally think it's unnecessary and ridiculous.

I think it's ridiculous to reclassify pregnancy as a disability. It is a physical condition for which the average human body is designed (Notwithstanding some health conditions and lack of desire to do so, both of which apply to me.) Deeming it to be something incapacitating just harks unpleasantly back to the bad ol' days of confining pregnant women to their beds, as their delicate condition preclude, well, everything.

I know in terms of parking, it is possible for pregnant women to get temporary handicapped permits as it is, if necessary.

So I personally think it's unnecessary and ridiculous.

I think it's ridiculous to reclassify pregnancy as a disability. It is a physical condition for which the average human body is designed (Notwithstanding some health conditions and lack of desire to do so, both of which apply to me.) Deeming it to be something incapacitating just harks unpleasantly back to the bad ol' days of confining pregnant women to their beds, as their delicate condition preclude, well, everything.

I know in terms of parking, it is possible for pregnant women to get temporary handicapped permits as it is, if necessary.

So I personally think it's unnecessary and ridiculous.

Pregnant women should be labeled mentally disabled as far as I'm concerned.
signed,
Obviously Childfree Woman

(the comment utility ate my previous long comment, so if I appear to be making a redundant point, I apologize)

I honestly could care less about the parking permit thing, but... just because our bodies are designed to do something doesn't mean it can't impair one's ability to do day-to-day activities.

We all age, and that will eventually impair our ability to do lots of things... if we are lucky enough to live that long!

;->

Whoa, there! Book_Grrl, I'm going to assume that your comment is meant as an ironic imitation of misogynist trolls, not as an intentional, demeaning insult toward an entire category of women or an attempt to start a divisive and pointless argument between those of us who have/want children and those of us who do not.

For instance, pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is NOT recognized in all states.

well, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is actually federal law, so it is recognized in all states. Of course, some states may have greater state protections as well, but the PDA defines gender discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include discrimination due to pregnancy.

Of course, the PDA was a legislative fix to a particularly bone-headed supreme court decision that said that gender discrimination didn't extend to pregnancy, because it was discrimination between "non-pregnant persons" and "pregnant persons" and not between men and women. Yeah. The PDA fixed that.

see here for more info: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html

WTF? Why would pregnant women be labelled "mentally disabled"? Just because you don't want to bear a child doesn't mean other women are insane for doing so. What an asshole.

Bizarre. In Canada we have special parking spots with strollers on them for pregnant women and new parents. They're up front alongside the special needs parking.

Not quite rocket science...

For instance, pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is NOT recognized in all states.

well, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is actually federal law, so it is recognized in all states. Of course, some states may have greater state protections as well, but the PDA defines gender discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include discrimination due to pregnancy.

Of course, the PDA was a legislative fix to a particularly bone-headed supreme court decision that said that gender discrimination didn't extend to pregnancy, because it was discrimination between "non-pregnant persons" and "pregnant persons" and not between men and women. Yeah. The PDA fixed that.

see here for more info: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html

Kat hit the issue right on the head.

I am due in six weeks, and I remain very active. I still carry my own groceries and can manage a walk across the parking lot. I work out for an hour every day. I would really resent it if the law ASSUMED that I was not as mobile simply due to my pregnancy. Let's not infantilize women. Yes, some days I hurt, and some days I get winded walking with groceries, but I can handle it. A lot of people without legal disabilities have these same problems day-to-day.

Here's the thing: many women do meet the legal definition of "disabled" due to pregnancy complications, and they are able to apply for temporary disability parking permits!

So this law seems completely redundant. Would I like to get a close parking spot? Sure. Are my daily activities generally harder being pregnant? Yes. But does my temporary change in ability rise to the same level as people who truly do need those parking spaces in order to access public spaces? Absolutely not.

I love you guys but you are really, really off on this one Samhita. In the movie Steel Magnolias, Annelle (Daryll Hannah) says to her husband, "We'll talk about uncomfortable when you are 9 months pregnant!" I would imagine most of those commenting so far have never had the pleasure of edema or soreness or the other "normal" things that happen in pregnancy. While some women might be fine - and God bless them - others are not. I was one of the latter. I frequently plotted out the distance of how far I would have to walk, or had my husband drop me at the entrance. The swollen feet and legs, after awhile, any long walk was too much. So yes, some women might need it, and it doesn't make anyone less of a woman to say so.

My problem with the word disabled is that it's so absolute. Outside the context of handicapped people, disabled is a much stronger word. A soldier is "disabled" when they've lost all fighting ability. A car is "disabled" when it is so inoperable that it cannot move under its own power at all. A person is "disabled" when... they posses even the slightest damage to their body or mind? I don't think so.

I've never thought much about the subject of abelism but it is easy to see how "disabled" is far too severe a condition to be attributed to most handicapped people. If your body isn't so damaged as to preclude movement, and your mind isn't so damaged as to preclude functional interaction with society, "disabled" you are not.

But then you think about what is possible, given the current laws with regard to differently-abled people and it is true that pregnant women sometimes have special needs and those needs should be protected by the government.

Why?

Irony, inconsistency and contradiction abound in discussions regarding disabled persons.

Regarding this bill itself, doesn't sound very controversial to me. Do we want to help out a class of people that are, on average, more physically limited than others? That's pretty reasonable. But it's also reasonable to say, no, pregnancy is not enough of a handicap that I think we should pass the bill.

You only begin to touch on the more controversial issues when you start talking about labeling (which I think is really not going to be influenced much based on this one little bill). But it's kind of funny to see people trying to distant pregnancy from being disabled, "it's a normal bodily function". I don't think disabled people would appreciate it all that much when they are trying so hard to get people to identify them as 'normal'.

Then there is the issue of aid. Should we help disabled persons? Should we provide extra leave time for pregnant women? Sure. But don't pretend it's not an imposition on everyone else. For a large business, where these things average out over a large workforce, maybe not such a big deal. But if the cost is being born by a small company, this could be a pretty big deal- let's not kid ourselves otherwise. But still, we provide opportunities for disabled people b/c that's what's fair. We should provide opportunities for women to become pregnant b/c we recognize that's a point many people reach in our lives and as a society we shouldn't discourage pregnancy.

But let's admit that there is a cost borne by others and that it's appropriate to ask what the best way to distribute that cost is.

Ridiculous.

1. As for the parking spaces, I thought exercise was supposed to be good for pregnant women, so, barring some abnormal problem, the few extra steps in a parking lot shouldn't really be a problem.

2. Procreation is a choice. I don't know anyone who is disabled/handicapped who chose to have that disability.

3. I detest the idea that on one hand some women will complain when a man opens a door for her or offers his seat on the subway, but on the other hand, they want all kinds of extras when they become pregnant.

I have friends and relatives who have been pregnant and, while they may suffer some discomfort, they are able to live normal lives whilst gestating. They care for their other children, do yard work, continue with their careers, do household chores, work out at the gym, etc. Where's the disability?

The problem is the second you label something legally, you open nasty doors. Saying a woman is disabled because her body is in the middle of doing something natural like pregnancy, which parking spaces they can is really the least of my concerns. You're dealing with something that we were created with the capablity of doing at baseline (choosing to do so or not to do so not being the issue; just saying it's a natural occurance), and labeling it as an anomoly. Is it out of the daily? Sure. But it's not abnormal.

I don't like at all what that implies.

I thought that it was so interesting that when I was pregnant, I could take SICK leave from work, and after I gave birth, I was able to use my DISABILITY benefits...

I was raised by a differently abled parent and am differently abled myself, and neither of us need handicap parking spaces.

I have a problem with the word "disabled" in the first place - we're still able, just not in the "normal" way. The part that is not able is the specific disability, and not the person. If we could remove the stigma, fine, but the meaning feels so rigid in terms of law, and it seems to me the whole idea of abilities needs to be more fluid. I know that specifically with my disability, it can be nearly incapacitating one day and I could run the entire parking lot another.

I think that extending handicaps to pregnant woman is an interesting idea, but I agree that if we make specific legislature about this, it'll only support a number of stigmas. If there was more flexibility about the understanding of abilities, and one pregnant woman could apply for help (like special parking or whatever) and another could choose not to...I don't know if I'm explaining this right but I do know that the general perception about the token wheelchair-bound disabled person could be expanded to understand the reality of a full spectrum of different abilities, we might not even have to have this discussion about the validity/possibility of pregnancy as a handicap.

In addition to the issues people have already mentioned, frankly it is hard enough to find a disabled spot for my disabled mother as it is. She has lot of mobility issues and is permanantly handicapped and I can't tell you the number of times we've had to drop her at the door because all the disabled spots are full. Even better when we are going somewhere where she will need to be in a wheelchair, have you ever tried to get someone into a wheelchair in a normal sized parking spot?

Maybe it is just where I live but it seems like everyone over 65 has a handicapped permit whether they need it or not. And if people happen to have a relation who has one, well that's fair game too.

As it stands women with specific mobility issues related to their pregnancy should be able to get a parking permit from their doctor. Otherwise, I think we need to leave the disabled parking for people who are really disabled.

deleahrium, I really appreciate what you said, and your suggestion for "more flexibility about the understanding of abilities, and one pregnant woman could apply for help (like special parking or whatever) and another could choose not to" is how the law currently works. What this law is proposing is a PRESUMPTION that a woman who is pregnant would need to use the accessible parking spaces. Current law allows pregnant women who have developed pregnancy-related disabilities to get the blue permits already- exactly as you described the ideal situation!

I was raised by a differently abled parent and am differently abled myself, and neither of us need handicap parking spaces.

I have a problem with the word "disabled" in the first place - we're still able, just not in the "normal" way. The part that is not able is the specific disability, and not the person. If we could remove the stigma, fine, but the meaning feels so rigid in terms of law, and it seems to me the whole idea of abilities needs to be more fluid. I know that specifically with my disability, it can be nearly incapacitating one day and I could run the entire parking lot another.

I think that extending handicaps to pregnant woman is an interesting idea, but I agree that if we make specific legislature about this, it'll only support a number of stigmas. If there was more flexibility about the understanding of abilities, and one pregnant woman could apply for help (like special parking or whatever) and another could choose not to...I don't know if I'm explaining this right but I do know that I can't judge whether a pregnant woman could benefit from this or not. I've never been pregnant but even if I had, I imagine my experience would be different. I imagine that some woman could benefit from government offering help.

Pregnancy aside, the general perception about the token wheelchair-bound disabled person should be expanded to understand the reality of a full spectrum of different abilities, we might not even have to have this discussion about the validity/possibility of pregnancy as a handicap.

I'll stand somewhat corrected, but the Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not apply to employers with less than 15 employees, and is very limited in scope of protections.

As for Book_Grrl's comment, I am actively trying to get pregnant but I took her comment as a joke.

Why stick labels on people? Let's label the parking spots--they don't care! And we can call them something good, like "Prime Parking" or "Convenient Parking" and doctors, psychiatrists, perhaps others (?) would be empowered to give out permits that you can hang on your rear-view mirror, with beginning and ending dates and license plate numbers written on them. No one would force anyone to use them, but pregnant women would be among those who had the option to receive them. Sound fair?

When I was in my last month, having packed 40 pounds onto my five feet, two inch body, I was able to get a permit for the good parking spots on campus simply by showing up at the appropriate office and asking for one. This enabled me to park near my office instead of down a long, LONG hill from my office. It was great and at the time I thought that anyone who's gestating should have this option. No reason anyone should be forced to use that option, of course.

Emma - have you yourself, ever been pregnant? You state, "women detest the idea that on one hand some women will complain when a man opens a door for her or offers his seat on the subway, but on the other hand, they want all kinds of extras when they become pregnant." Trust me, if you are pregnant, you are getting the door opened or a seat given up because you are pregnant - not because you are a woman. If you are in pain, you would take the seat, graciously, and feminist priciples be damned! Being a strong woman doesn't mean you have to be hardcore each and every moment. If mobility is difficult, or your feet hurt, it's okay to accept a seat, I would think. This is true even if you wouldn't in other circumstances. A pregnant woman and a non-pregnant woman are not the same. It's okay, I think, to treat them differently, and for the same woman to behave differently in the different circumstances.

Why stick labels on people? Let's label the parking spots--they don't care! And we can call them something good, like "Prime Parking" or "Convenient Parking" and doctors, psychiatrists, perhaps others (?) would be empowered to give out permits that you can hang on your rear-view mirror, with beginning and ending dates and license plate numbers written on them. No one would force anyone to use them, but pregnant women would be among those who had the option to receive them. Sound fair?

When I was in my last month, having packed 40 pounds onto my five feet, two inch body, I was able to get a permit for the good parking spots on campus simply by showing up at the appropriate office and asking for one. This enabled me to park near my office instead of down a long, LONG hill from my office. It was great and at the time I thought that anyone who's gestating should have this option. No reason anyone should be forced to use that option, of course.

well, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is actually federal law, so it is recognized in all states. Of course, some states may have greater state protections as well, but the PDA defines gender discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include discrimination due to pregnancy.

It also categorizes pregnancy as a temporary disability.

A lot of the comments (and the original post itself) rub me the wrong way. As others have already mentioned, there seems to be a big problem here with people attaching stigma to the terms "disabled," "handicapped," etc., and being wary of attaching that same stigma to pregnant women.

Frankly, the issue with this approach isn't whether or not pregnant women are disabled. The issue is that there is a shit ton of prejudice against people with disabilities.

Sure, pregnancy is a perfectly natural process for which the human body was designed. So is getting old.

No, not every woman who is pregnant is going to have mobility problems. Neither will every disabled person.

Women who are pregnant experience pregnancy in lots of different ways. People who are disabled experience their disabilities in lots of different ways.

If you're concerned about the meanings and assumptions attached to the words, then you should probably be considering what it's like for people who live every moment of their lives dealing with those meanings and assumptions. Before anyone balks at the idea of considering pregnant women to be disabled, take a moment to unpack your privelege backpack and make sure you aren't speaking from your own prejudices against people with disabilities.

Nope, I've never been pregnant. Nor do I ever intend to be. And all the "well then, you couldn't possibly understands" you can muster will not change my mind. With few exceptions, pregnancy is a choice. Unless there are abnormal circumstances, pregnancy, in and of itself, should not be considered a disability or a handicap.

My personal opinion is that it does not serve feminism well... we march for equality and then turn around and ask for special treatment.

Now, ask yourself why organizations like momsrising are all up in arms about mothers being discriminated against in the workplace. Gee...could topics like this have anything to do with that?

Argh. Some days I just don't understand other feminists.

i can understand the whole "disability" thing because, in a way, you are sort of "disabled" from what you normally are used to being. but you are NOT disabled when you're pregnant. we are not broken or needing people's sympathies. anyway, my grocery store used to have ONE Expecting Mother's parking spot. i was driving towards it one time and this stupid man in a truck parked in it! i was so mad i was gonna give him a piece of my mind when i saw him inside - but i didn't see him. i think they should designate spots for pregnant women, though. it's a bitch walking to the store.

Not every pregnancy is just a "normal" function of a woman's body. I had debilitating nausea for 9 months of my first pregnancy, and debilitating nausea WITH vomiting for 9 months of my second. I had horrible reflux, varicose veins AROUND MY VAGINA (yes! Such a thing is possible!), severely limiting my ability to walk, and during my first pregnancy I suffered a pinched nerve that caused mee to drag my left foot behind me, and turned sideways, with every step I took -- for two of the last four weeks of my pregnancy.

As for the smarmy "pregnant women chose to become that way!" comment, FY. I didn't choose the unpredictable discomfort that came along with it.

And yes, when an asshole saw me entering the subway door, lubmering along toward the one empty seat and raced me to it, sitting down before I could, I completely resented him.

If I "choose" to have a surgery for valid medical reasons, do I also not deserve any special consideration during recovery, because after all, I didn't HAVE to do it?

Or are you just insistent that nobody else get anything SPECIAL OR DIFFERENT than you do, because they should've made the same choices you did?

foldedintobeauty, I would guess that most people with disabilities wouldn't appreciate being thought of as "broken or needing people's sympathies."

The legal definition of "disability" for civil rights enforcement is as follows

"any person who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities"

A "physical or mental impairment" is:

"any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive, digestive, genito‑urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine; or (B) any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities."

A "major life activity" is:

"a function such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working."

I'm 35 weeks pregnant and not actively searching for close parking. I always think that someone with mobile toddlers or knee problems needs it more than I do. Waddling another 50 feet doesn't really change my day one way or another; even if I thought this law was a necessary blanket protection, I probably still wouldn't go through the rigamarole to apply.
However, wouldn't women with debilitating pregnancy-associated conditions would already be able to get this kind of parking with a doctor's note?

I was offered a "handicapped" parking pass by my doctor when I was in my second trimester of a twin pregnancy (I had pubic symphysis dysfunction and walking became very painful). Case-by-case decisions like this seem more reasonable to me than just designating all pregnant women disabled, since, as others have pointed out, some pregnant women suffer little or no mobility impairment.

(And tinfoilhattie - whatever. You and I totally chose to be in pain and therefore we should just either stay at home or limp about in martyred silence. Also, once we have our babies, we shoiuld just stay the hell out of other people's space lest our noisy, smelly spawn annoy real people.)

Exactly what I was thinking, Nicole.

Regarding giving special treatment for pregnant women, I don't think that is unfeminist. I would gladly give up my seat for a pregnant woman, or hold the door for a man on crutches, or any person carrying a box, for that matter. It's not that I think that they can't do these things themselves, or that I think less of them if they can't, or anything like that. It's simply that I realize that a pregnant woman is carrying an extra load, and while she may be just fine, she might also be experiencing some difficulties or discomfort. And if she doesn't want the seat, well, I'll sit right back down.

I was offered a "handicapped" parking pass by my doctor when I was in my second trimester of a twin pregnancy (I had pubic symphysis dysfunction and walking became very painful). Case-by-case decisions like this seem more reasonable to me than just designating all pregnant women disabled, since, as others have pointed out, some pregnant women suffer little or no mobility impairment.

(And tinfoilhattie - whatever. You and I totally chose to be in pain and therefore we should just either stay at home or limp about in martyred silence. Also, once we have our babies, we shoiuld just stay the hell out of other people's space lest our noisy, smelly spawn annoy real people.)

just to put the furor over using the term 'disability' in the context of pregnancy in its own context - many many women get their maternity leave, technically, covered by 'disabilty' pay. Daily, I fill forms for women (who aren't even pregnant anymore!)attesting to how long their 'disability' will last so they can get their 2 months or whatever off from work. so, there are multiple ways in which 'disability' ties in with pregnancy, and while I knwo we left leaning feminists love to get all worked up over words, sometimes a term is just a term. As a friend of mine who was wheelchair bound once said "I don't care if you call me fucking disabled, just put a fucking ramp in front of your store so I can get in!"

After reading a book that dealt with some of the legal issues of pregnancy leave, I don't think it's a good idea to label pregnancy as a disability or to give a pregnant person "sick" leave. It's simply something different that what we already have categories for, because the categories were made for men. Sometimes people argue that to have special rules for pregnancy means treating men and women differently (from which they either argue that pregnancy leave is reverse sexist or that it's good to have different rules for different types of people), but I think that's missing the point. We need to have rules for pregnancy, regardless of the gender of the pregnant person. And when a transman gets pregnant, he gets pregnancy leave too. I do think we need to work on the stigma attached to disabilities, for sure, but I think there's something wrong with calling pregnancy a disability, or anything else besides pregnancy, a unique type of life event, just because people used to make laws without keeping women in mind.

After reading a book that dealt with some of the legal issues of pregnancy leave, I don't think it's a good idea to label pregnancy as a disability or to give a pregnant person "sick" leave. It's simply something different that what we already have categories for, because the categories were made for men. Sometimes people argue that to have special rules for pregnancy means treating men and women differently (from which they either argue that pregnancy leave is reverse sexist or that it's good to have different rules for different types of people), but I think that's missing the point. We need to have rules for pregnancy, regardless of the gender of the pregnant person. And when a transman gets pregnant, he gets pregnancy leave too. I do think we need to work on the stigma attached to disabilities, for sure, but I think there's something wrong with calling pregnancy a disability, or anything else besides pregnancy, a unique type of life event, just because people used to make laws without keeping women in mind.

On the other hand, when pregnancies have effects that are debilitating in some way, it makes perfect sense for those people to get help for those problems and for the problems to be referred to and handled the same way as other disabilities (or whatever term is deemed appropriate).

Emma, lots of women in this country don't exactly choose to get pregnant. They're denied sex-ed, access to contraception, and access to abortion. We talk about that a lot on this site, so I'd think you'd remember.

I, as it happens, did choose to get pregnant. Actively tried, even. I did not, however, choose debilitating nausea, dangerous weight loss, and utter misery. Suggesting that pregnant women who suffer are just getting what they chose is like saying that people who die in plane crashes deserve it because they chose to fly. And I can't help but think that if a man had an elective medical procedure and suffered terrible side effects, no one would say that he should just suck it up and shut up because he chose to have the procedure.

I came into this thread curious to see how it would play out with regards to reactions to disablement specifically, and found some of the attitudes and assumptions a bit disappointing. I agree wholeheartedly with how NicoleGW has addressed this.

As a pro-feminist male with a disability, I'm often conscious of overlaps in the experience of the two groups, the constraints imposed by a system with strict norms of sexuality, physical appearance and economic production. I’m heartened by a feeling of solidarity with the feminist movement, and full of admiration for the strength and intelligence of individuals within it. This is why it’s a little disappointing to see the negative reaction exhibited by some in this thread. I expect awareness and sensitivity to exclusion, control and oppression of a minority. Because, that’s what it is. The fact is, I'm only disabled when I come into contact with other individuals with a set of expectations, contrary to the latent assumption by some here that disability is abnormal, defective. This just buys into the ideology that society can be readily sorted into “normal� and “deviant,� and that the latter is something to be avoided, which is exactly what the disability rights movement is trying to get away from.

Truthfully, I’m happy to have a disability. It can be demanding, most definitely, but I might be an ignorant, patriarchal asshole otherwise, and it has given me a heightened awareness of others who are constrained and marginalised. I would hope that anyone who recoils from the idea of women being thought of as temporarily disabled (as we all are at some point, whether as children or seniors) would reconsider the difficulties that we face in our lives, a good deal of it as a result of negative stereotyping.

I haven't gotten through all the comments yet, so forgive if I'm repeating this point, but, I agree with what Samhita has to say. I love the idea of a society where pregnancy, as well as menstration, menopause, and any other behaviors native to a female body, and the secondary behaviors native to these states (ie, reduced mobility in the 3rd trimester), are not naturalized as EXCEPTIONS to a "normal" (ie male, ie, not pregnant/menstrating/menopausal, etc),. So on one hand, the disability law might seem like a move in this direction. But to classify it as a disability, or even more extremely, as a handicap, absolutely has negative connotations given the culturally naturalized associations with such terms. Words are pretty powerful in entraping & robbing of agency, and I think embracing already this set of already frought terms will only further frame female bodily behaviors as a negatively-seen other.

Yes, I'm well aware that SOME women don't choose to get pregnant. But for those who do (and I would venture to say that's the majority), to do so without researching fully the possible complications and side effects is simply unfathomable to me.

As for elective surgical procedures...that's very similar to getting pregnant. It's a choice and anyone undergoing such a procedure should certainly do his/her due diligence beforehand.

I realize I'm the pariah around here because I think instead of complaining about how hard women have it, advocating for special treatment and laws (pregnancy disability and momsrising, for example), and pointing fingers and assigning blame, we should focus our efforts on education...so that pro-choice really means pro-CHOICE. Even if that choice is never having children...which from what I've seen around here, isn't given very much respect.

I've tried to have civil discussions on this blog before and I always get the condescension and bingos about how I couldn't possibly understand because I made the CHOICE not to have children and because I think everyone should understand that it is, indeed, a choice. According to most people around here, it seems that makes my opinion less valid.

And yet I continue to try. Why? Maybe it's because I so love being told "FY" for voicing my opinion. Because, you know, that lifts the discussion up to a really intelligent level and encourages conversation and give-and-take.

Sigh.

emma, the problem that i have with your arguments here is that they are essentially analogous to those made by antifeminists to justify sexism.

while pregnancy may be a choice for some women (would that it truly were for all!), it is a completely natural occurrence. i have a problem with saying that women who are going through pregnancy and want accommodations so that they can go about their lives is asking for "special treatment." it's only "special" if viewed through the lens that the normal or default state of being is "not pregnant." this is exactly what antifeminists do when they refuse to alter say, the strength requirements to be a firefighter (because that's just women asking for special treatment because the average woman is shorter than the average man or has less upper body strength, etc).

you seem to have an inherent animosity toward women who do choose to have children that is, in my view, coloring your judgment of what is or should be considered and treated normal.

Even if that choice is never having children...which from what I've seen around here, isn't given very much respect.

Actually, Emma, that choice is given plenty of respect. (It's my choice, as well.) What is NOT given respect is the lack of nuance, understanding, patience, and compassion in the way you talk people who make a different choice than you. Having children is a fact of life for the majority of people in the U.S. and throughout the world. And the fact of the matter is that women bear the financial and physical burden of reproduction. It's all well and good to wag your finger at women and declare that because they should have known better, they deserve discrimination, job insecurity, and/or not to be accommodated for their physical needs during pregnancy and lactation, but that only helps to hold most women down.

I have no animosity toward women who choose to have children. I have a problem with women who choose to have children and then expect special accommodations, laws, benefits, etc. And I have a huge problem with people who show little or no respect to those who have made the conscious choice to remain childfree, a sentiment that appears to be quite acceptable on this blog simply because the majority of people here are or plan to be parents.

I can't state enough that I wholeheartedly advocate educating people as to ALL their choices (and the consequences of those choices)...not just the abortion choice...and work toward empowering them to make intelligent and informed decisions that are going to affect the rest of their lives.

But the seemingly constant demands for special treatment for parents (especially mothers) is getting old and it's pitting the childfree women against mothers. Is that what feminism is about?

rileystclair: This is exactly what antifeminists do when they refuse to alter say, the strength requirements to be a firefighter (because that's just women asking for special treatment because the average woman is shorter than the average man or has less upper body strength, etc).

But that is asking for special treatment. Having different requirements for different sexes distinguishes candidates on something besides ability, which is the definition of discrimination.

Emma, if you saw a pregnant woman and it was obvious she was in pain from having to stand, you wouldn't give her your seat, because that is special treatment? Because she choose pregnancy, and all the discomforts that come with it, she doesn't deserve this basic human decency?

Perhaps we should also get rid of public schools. After all, that's special treatment for parents, since the childless get no benefit from that.

Stork parking has to be one of the silliest thing I've ever seen. It's also patronizing to an amazing degree. I can still remember the first time I heard of stork parking (parking for pregnant women), I had this mental image of a woman being patted on the head like a child and being told 'it's okay, honey, it's *too hard* just let me take care of it for you.' Having grown up surrounded by good-ole boys who think nothing of saying stuff like this, it annoyed me just a little.

I honestly do not see anything special or even that hard about pregnancy. Having naseua, swelling, back pain, etc? My sympathies, let me tell you about my knee, which tends to become inflamed, reduces mobility to the point that I look rather like Igor dragging it along behind me and makes climbling stairs or even mild inclines an impossible task. How about recurring sinus infections that inflamed my aural cavities to the point that I lost my hearing for several days? Fun times. (Don't ask, I don't know how it happened, but whenever I have sinus problems, it goes into my ears.)

Anyways, the point being...we all have chronic aches, pains and physical issues that occassionally make mobility, daily living and work difficult. Pregnancy is but one of a long list. In a perfect world, we would all have what we needed to live pain-free, mobile, physically fulfilling lives. We don't, however, and we all have to deal with life's little ups and downs, which includes days of physically illness for whatever reason.

echo what wildberry just said.
i'm too tired to get into it right now.

i just don't think that ending discrimination, whether based on sex or race or religion or sexuality or ableness or whatever means treating everyone the same all the time. no one is saying that pregnant women should all be given a pony and the rest of us should be given coal and switches and have to wash their feet.

Sweet cracker sandwich...yes, by all means, please, assume to know what I would do in a given situation. That's going to help this discussion immensely.

Frankly, whether I would give up my seat to ANYONE who appeared to be having a physical problem would depend upon my own condition at that time. Unlike pregnancy, there are conditions that are not visible. Please don't assume that the person who doesn't offer someone else a seat is rude, ignorant, and selfish. Maybe there's actually something you don't know.

As for public schools, I'm all in favor of paying my fair share of school taxes because it benefits society to have an educated population. Perhaps you could refer to my previous comments where I go on and on ad nauseam about education and empowerment.

alice--maybe i just used a crappy example since i totally just pulled that out of my ass. the point i was trying to make is that our society is structured around the default person, which incidentally is white, male, christian, heterosexual and not "disabled" and hence that default person will never be pregnant.

my problem isn't holding people to standards based on their abilities, but on holding them to standards that are so tied to cultural expectations that are really pretty arbitrary when it comes down to it. i'm just confused by people like emma, because i feel that her arguments ultimately don't help anyone, especially not women. as long as pregnancy ONLY happens to women (and most childcare responsibilities still fall to women), when we structure everything in such a way that women must either choose between having children and say, having a successful career, it's counterproductive to what i believe feminism is all about. i guess what i'm trying to say is that having on-site childcare in workplaces or more generous and flexible parental leave or something as simple as having some closer parking spaces to the office that are allotted to pregnant women is only seen as special or aberrant or EXTRA because the default person (remember, a dude) hasn't ever asked for them.

this is only tangential to this particular post, but emma raised some larger issues for me. i really want to know where she would draw the line--is paid maternity leave "special treatment" because only women who have chlidren are eligible for it?

I am so fucking sick of the people who have either never been pregnant or who have been fortunate enough to have had easy pregnancies whining about how easy pregnancy is and how they don't understand the big deal... *after* several posters have described how much of a big deal it can be!

Pregnancy can be disabling. Yes, it can. Live with it.

As for Emma, if a man was skiing, and he broke his neck skiing, and now he's a quadriplegic, would you deny him disability rights because he chose to go skiing? If someone chose to drive, and got into an accident, and broke their legs, would you deny them the right to park in the disabled spot? How about soldiers? We have an all-volunteer army! They knew they could get their arms and legs blown off before they went to Iraq; so now should they be denied parking privileges?

The fact is, pregnancy can cause temporary disability. If men could get pregnant, then both pregnant men and women could get temporarily disabled by it. Saying "it's anti-feminist to ask for special privileges for pregnant women" pays more attention to the "women" part than the "pregnant" part.

I don't need to park in the handicapped spots. I have strong legs and I'm not afraid to use them. But when I was 9 months pregnant and looked like I was having twins, when my legs were so swollen I had to wear snow boots because they wouldn't fit in any shoes, then yes, I could have used parking in a handicapped spot. I did not *choose* to become unwell from my pregnancy any more than guys who sign up to go to Iraq choose to get their legs blown off or people who drive choose to get into accidents where they break their backs.

*Women* do not deserve handicapped spots. But at least some *pregnant* women do. And honestly I'd rather give it to all heavily pregnant women rather than burden already busy and burdened women with having to deal with a bureaucracy to get a special permit. Yeah, some assholes who are strong and healthy and have no need to park in the handicapped space will do so, but you can't tell what women are really burdened by their pregnancy and what women are strong and hale just from looking at them.

All that being said... yes, it's also an enormous burden to have to carry a small baby shortly after your c-section, or dealing with a mobile toddler, so I like the model of "expecting mothers/parents with infants and toddlers" parking spaces I see at places like Target and BJ's. Any person who has to care for a small immobile person, or a small, mobile and totally irresponsible person, should get some consideration -- I like the model of giving spots that aren't as good as the handicapped spots but are better than the general purpose spots to the pregnant women and the parents of either sex who have small children.

rileystclair: i guess what i'm trying to say is that having on-site childcare in workplaces or more generous and flexible parental leave or something as simple as having some closer parking spaces to the office that are allotted to pregnant women is only seen as special or aberrant or EXTRA because the default person (remember, a dude) hasn't ever asked for them.

I having too much trouble getting my thoughts in line that I'm afraid I won't be able to respond with the detail this topic deserves tonight. Being stressed by this, I'll just take comfort in the hope that someday all babies will be grown in artificial wombs, at which point child-production will cease being a feminist issue period. ^_^

On the subject of firefighters, though: when I was young I remember seeing a female firefighter, who had qualified for her job when the standards for men were the only standards, on TV speak out against different standards for women. I don't remember what she actually said but that's all besides the point anyway; her mere existence was the greatest counter-point to sex-based standards I could ever imagine.

You know, you can already get a handicapped parking pass while you're pregnant if you need one. I know, because I did, and Jesus on a Saltine, did I ever need it while I was pregnant.

I could barely breathe or walk and was on modified, then full, then nobody-move-or-you'll-explode bedrest for kind of a while, so I had no problem asking for and getting a parking pass.

I don't think that every woman's pregnancy is disabling, but if yours is, you can already get the pass, so I don't see this proposed change as relevant or necessary.

I think I hate this idea with a passion. A firey passion.

First of all like some people have pointed out, not every Pregnant woman, even in her last few months is in the need of moblity aide so giving them 'temporary status so they can get handicap parking isn't very fair.

This actually hits on a pet peve of mine. So I'm inserting a rant. excluded from my rant are pregnant women who may have moblity/hospital care needs during her pregnancy, and special considrations for parents of children with special needs.

SO here is my pet peve being a disabled woman who is handicaped and moblity impared with the lovely temporary blue handicap parking pass. Which I very much need because I can only walk with my walker, or roll myself in my chair very very short distances.

I first want to say that I'm not a selfish person and when I was able I never questioned parking in a handicap spot, not even for the rediculus shit people tell themselves its okay. like waiting for a friend or something.

I'm insanely angry about the continual missuse of handicap spaces now as it is. people who have a handicap mother drive their care to the store so they can park in the handicap parking because their moth