"I was shaking my head no when I pulled the vibrator from the envelope...It wasn't just the vibrator and thinking of my mother masturbating that upset me, but also that my mother's boyfriend had stopped sleeping with her and that no amount of love I gave her could equal what was in my hand." Lisa Glatt, A Girl Becomes a Comma Like That, p. 120.
First of all, I would like to say that I am currently reading A Girl Becomes a Comma Like That and loving it. My post, which you will soon find out if you haven't assumed already is dealing with my problems with the quote above, has nothing to do with my feelings on the book. I think it's great; I just had such a problem with the sentences above that I had to stop and write about it.
When I read the section quoted above, I stopped cold, and I was a little angry. Why does the author (or character, perhaps) assume that a woman ordering a vibrator is lonely and not getting sex? It makes me sad that our culture has painted masturbation as something that only lonely people do.
Masturbation is not a sad, lonely, pathetic substitute; it's not the opposite of a sex life. Masturbation is a healthy part of a sex life. It's a supplement. Your partner is not in the mood but you are? Masturbate. Partner out of town? Masturbate. Partner not in the mood yet but wants to please you? Masturbate and let them watch. And in the same way, owning a vibrator/dildo does not mean that said owner is not getting any sex. Vibrators can be used for solo or partner time.
Now, I understand that the author could be using the vibrator scene to paint a larger picture in her novel. I won't ruin anything (I can't spoil too much, I'm not finished with the book yet) but the woman/mother who ordered the vibrator is dealing with cancer and cancer treatments such as chemo and radiation. So maybe the vibrator is supposed to symbolize her isolation from other (healthy) people, whether self-imposed or not, and her daughter's inability to understand what she's going through. I get it, and I'm not saying the author should have done anything differently. What I am saying is that it's interesting (and sad, and sex-negative, and woman-negative) that we are supposed to see this vibrator, this wonderful tool for a woman's pleasure without needing a partner, and see it as something sad, lonely, something heartbreaking. Are we supposed to feel sorry for her? I think maybe so...
I remember the scene in Parenthood when Steve Martin accidentally finds his sister's vibrator, his divorced, single, lonely sister, and bursts out laughing while she is mortified. No one else in the film mentions sex toys or masturbation aids. Why? Because people (according to our culture) in relationships don't need to masturbate. If you're in a relationship you must be getting ALL the sex you need/want exactly when you need/want it.
This is not reality. And it truly can cause real-life problems. I was amazed the first time my boyfriend turned me down for sex. I couldn't believe that he, a male human, didn't want sex every time it was offered. And I was hurt when he suggested I masturbate (which I had never done) because I thought it meant that I was pathetic and lonely. It's just not true. Most women who masturbate have more orgasms when they do have partner sex. Why?
Practice makes perfect.
I just wish our culture could accept that.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
A**hole Award: Boycott American Women
I've decided to create the first Feminism: Not a Naughty Word Award: The A**hole Award. Bitch magazine has their "Douchebag Decree" on their blogs, and I've decided to have my own. I don't know how often I will give out this award (I certainly could have last week when Phil Bryant referred to Initiative 26 opponents as Nazis), but I have to give it out today.
Last night, I got an email that a new person had commented on my blog. His comment provided a link to his blog, as well as a link to his book (do pay attention to the only 2 comments beneath the book). Now, the comment no longer appears on the blog, so maybe he decided to delete it after posting, I'm not sure. But you should really check out these links, because it's amazing to me that this exists. His blog, and his book, are called Boycott American Women. Here are a few gems:
Have you American women ever heard of the word "misandry"? It is the exact opposite of misoginy. It means hatred of men. And feminism and misandry are the same thing...So, get used to living alone with your 10 cats, or else become a lesbian. Those are your two options, American women! (Dec. 31, 2010)
American women have confused being strong and independent with what they want (selfishness), what they want to hear (arrogance). Ever disagree with an American woman, they can't take it and they tell you it's negative or being critical or opinionated, even if you show them proof they are wrong. (Dec. 27, 2010)
There are some good American women, but as a group, they pose a higher risk of future divorce compared to more traditional foreign women. This is one of the reasons that a growing number of well-off American men are marrying foreign brides...One of the problems here is that many young American women have become just like Brittany Spears - materialistic and emotionally unstable. Thus, they are not marriage-material and thus, easily discarded. (Nov. 17, 2011)
The sickness of feminism has made American women ugly. Ugliness is the mark of feminism, the scar left on women unlucky enough to be its victim. How can a women ever be beautiful after this infection? By deciding to be a women again and sever [serve, I'm pretty sure, is the intended word] her man as a woman should. Some women have been tricked into seeing themselves as beautiful because of feminism, but this is a lie. (Nov. 15, 2011)
Now, I could comment on the grammatical and spelling problems that abound on this blog (and probably in the book), but really, wouldn't that just be petty of me? Well, who cares, because this blog is completely petty. It's full of the rantings of men (it looks like any angry anti-feminist can post here) who don't want to lose their privileges. It's written by men who truly believe that women should "serve" their men (or "sever", as the author typed it). It's written by men who think that women asking for what they want are being selfish, but men asking for what they want (such as, I don't know, submissive women) are entitled and following the natural order.
This blog discusses the fact that women ruin the lives of men, and one way that they do that is with "False rape accusations (it has been proven that up to 80 percent of rape accusations are FALSE)." Now, I have heard different figures for the percentage of false rape accusations, so I tried to google it quickly. Wikipedia (not at all the best source, I know, but the fastest one I could find that wasn't just another blog ranting about false rape accusations) says, "Detailed investigations using differing samples and methodologies have found widely differing results ranging from as high as 41% to as low as 1.5%. As a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown." So even within a huge range of possibility, the number is NOWHERE close to 80%. So where did this guy get his statistics? Who knows! He probably made it up.
These men want 1950s housewives. They want women to cook, clean, lie down for sex when told, and to smile while doing it all. In other words, these men don't want their wives to think or speak, or they certainly don't want their wives to challenge them to think. And of course, a huge problem here is that the only role in which these men discuss women is that of wife/girlfriend. These men don't respect women as individuals, I doubt they would call any women "friends" or "confidants." They're looking for baby-making, house-cleaning vessels.
I almost didn't write about this blog because it is SO ridiculous and the authors are clearly so ignorant, but I was so shocked that something like this could exist today that I had to share it.
Last night, I got an email that a new person had commented on my blog. His comment provided a link to his blog, as well as a link to his book (do pay attention to the only 2 comments beneath the book). Now, the comment no longer appears on the blog, so maybe he decided to delete it after posting, I'm not sure. But you should really check out these links, because it's amazing to me that this exists. His blog, and his book, are called Boycott American Women. Here are a few gems:
Have you American women ever heard of the word "misandry"? It is the exact opposite of misoginy. It means hatred of men. And feminism and misandry are the same thing...So, get used to living alone with your 10 cats, or else become a lesbian. Those are your two options, American women! (Dec. 31, 2010)
American women have confused being strong and independent with what they want (selfishness), what they want to hear (arrogance). Ever disagree with an American woman, they can't take it and they tell you it's negative or being critical or opinionated, even if you show them proof they are wrong. (Dec. 27, 2010)
There are some good American women, but as a group, they pose a higher risk of future divorce compared to more traditional foreign women. This is one of the reasons that a growing number of well-off American men are marrying foreign brides...One of the problems here is that many young American women have become just like Brittany Spears - materialistic and emotionally unstable. Thus, they are not marriage-material and thus, easily discarded. (Nov. 17, 2011)
The sickness of feminism has made American women ugly. Ugliness is the mark of feminism, the scar left on women unlucky enough to be its victim. How can a women ever be beautiful after this infection? By deciding to be a women again and sever [serve, I'm pretty sure, is the intended word] her man as a woman should. Some women have been tricked into seeing themselves as beautiful because of feminism, but this is a lie. (Nov. 15, 2011)
Now, I could comment on the grammatical and spelling problems that abound on this blog (and probably in the book), but really, wouldn't that just be petty of me? Well, who cares, because this blog is completely petty. It's full of the rantings of men (it looks like any angry anti-feminist can post here) who don't want to lose their privileges. It's written by men who truly believe that women should "serve" their men (or "sever", as the author typed it). It's written by men who think that women asking for what they want are being selfish, but men asking for what they want (such as, I don't know, submissive women) are entitled and following the natural order.
This blog discusses the fact that women ruin the lives of men, and one way that they do that is with "False rape accusations (it has been proven that up to 80 percent of rape accusations are FALSE)." Now, I have heard different figures for the percentage of false rape accusations, so I tried to google it quickly. Wikipedia (not at all the best source, I know, but the fastest one I could find that wasn't just another blog ranting about false rape accusations) says, "Detailed investigations using differing samples and methodologies have found widely differing results ranging from as high as 41% to as low as 1.5%. As a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown." So even within a huge range of possibility, the number is NOWHERE close to 80%. So where did this guy get his statistics? Who knows! He probably made it up.
These men want 1950s housewives. They want women to cook, clean, lie down for sex when told, and to smile while doing it all. In other words, these men don't want their wives to think or speak, or they certainly don't want their wives to challenge them to think. And of course, a huge problem here is that the only role in which these men discuss women is that of wife/girlfriend. These men don't respect women as individuals, I doubt they would call any women "friends" or "confidants." They're looking for baby-making, house-cleaning vessels.
I almost didn't write about this blog because it is SO ridiculous and the authors are clearly so ignorant, but I was so shocked that something like this could exist today that I had to share it.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Paternalistic Pharmacists (and Politics)
In keeping with the theme of personhood, abortion, reproductive rights and so on, I want to discuss something I discovered awhile back when I was reading Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth but hadn't found the time to write about.
I've written about how the personhood movement aims to get rid of abortion, and could very well get rid of many birth control options as well. The sad fact is, though, that many women already have limited or no access to abortions or birth control because other people think they know better what's good or not for women.
No matter your feelings on abortion or birth control, the plain truth is that both are currently legal in the United States. Many pharmacists, however, refuse to give out prescribed medications if they have a moral problem with them. Valenti cites several occasions in which a pharmacist simply refused to provide EC (the morning-after pill/Plan B). The drug was approved in 2006 for over-the-counter sale, yet countless pharmacists have lied to customers to avoid selling the pill. One pharmacist instructed his staff to "tell the patient that he is out of the medication and can order it, but it will take a week to get here. The patient will be forced to go to another pharmacy because she has to take these medicines within 72 hours for them to be effective. Problem solved." Another pharmacist admitted that she and other workers weren't allowed to stock the medication at all, and to send it back if they got anyway, yet they always told customers that they were "out of stock." This pharmacist also witnessed a woman who had a prescription for Cytotec (a medication to help pass tissue after a miscarriage) and the pharmacist began to question the customer about why she needed it. Even with a legal prescription in hand, this pharmacist was immediately suspicious of the customer and felt that he knew better about what this woman should or should not be doing.
Valenti discusses these situations within the context of the virginity movement, but I find that they fit right in with the personhood movement also. Valenti writes, "Behind all this paternalism is a simple distrust of women. The virginity movement [insert personhood movement here] doesn't just believe that women can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies--it believes men can make those decisions better."
Any movement that tries to restrict or get rid of family planning clinics, contraception, health insurance coverage for standard and necessary medical visits and procedures (pap smears, STI screenings, etc.) is a movement that that says women don't know what they want, what they need.
Well, it's not true. Women know what they want. We want reproductive health care. We want the right to family planning. We want contraceptive options. We want to make our own decisions.
Recently, Eve Ensler wrote a great piece about how she is "so over rape" and rape culture. Well, I'm so over small, extremist political groups trying to take over the country. I'm over men telling me that if I choose to have sex, even responsible and safe sex, then I should be willing to carry a baby. (I wish I could remember where I read/heard this, but it's my new favorite saying "Just because a woman consents to sex doesn't mean she consents to pregnancy.") I'm over being told that "good Christians" should control our legal system (here's where I would bring up the separation of church and state but we seem to be so beyond that it's ridiculous). I'm over being told that women lose their rights as citizens and humans as soon as they become pregnant.
I'm so over paternalistic politics.
I've written about how the personhood movement aims to get rid of abortion, and could very well get rid of many birth control options as well. The sad fact is, though, that many women already have limited or no access to abortions or birth control because other people think they know better what's good or not for women.
No matter your feelings on abortion or birth control, the plain truth is that both are currently legal in the United States. Many pharmacists, however, refuse to give out prescribed medications if they have a moral problem with them. Valenti cites several occasions in which a pharmacist simply refused to provide EC (the morning-after pill/Plan B). The drug was approved in 2006 for over-the-counter sale, yet countless pharmacists have lied to customers to avoid selling the pill. One pharmacist instructed his staff to "tell the patient that he is out of the medication and can order it, but it will take a week to get here. The patient will be forced to go to another pharmacy because she has to take these medicines within 72 hours for them to be effective. Problem solved." Another pharmacist admitted that she and other workers weren't allowed to stock the medication at all, and to send it back if they got anyway, yet they always told customers that they were "out of stock." This pharmacist also witnessed a woman who had a prescription for Cytotec (a medication to help pass tissue after a miscarriage) and the pharmacist began to question the customer about why she needed it. Even with a legal prescription in hand, this pharmacist was immediately suspicious of the customer and felt that he knew better about what this woman should or should not be doing.
Valenti discusses these situations within the context of the virginity movement, but I find that they fit right in with the personhood movement also. Valenti writes, "Behind all this paternalism is a simple distrust of women. The virginity movement [insert personhood movement here] doesn't just believe that women can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies--it believes men can make those decisions better."
Any movement that tries to restrict or get rid of family planning clinics, contraception, health insurance coverage for standard and necessary medical visits and procedures (pap smears, STI screenings, etc.) is a movement that that says women don't know what they want, what they need.
Well, it's not true. Women know what they want. We want reproductive health care. We want the right to family planning. We want contraceptive options. We want to make our own decisions.
Recently, Eve Ensler wrote a great piece about how she is "so over rape" and rape culture. Well, I'm so over small, extremist political groups trying to take over the country. I'm over men telling me that if I choose to have sex, even responsible and safe sex, then I should be willing to carry a baby. (I wish I could remember where I read/heard this, but it's my new favorite saying "Just because a woman consents to sex doesn't mean she consents to pregnancy.") I'm over being told that "good Christians" should control our legal system (here's where I would bring up the separation of church and state but we seem to be so beyond that it's ridiculous). I'm over being told that women lose their rights as citizens and humans as soon as they become pregnant.
I'm so over paternalistic politics.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Why Not Feminist?
I have discovered in recent years that most women (and men) these days don't like to call themselves feminists. This doesn't make much sense to me, especially when someone tells me they do believe in gender equality, equal pay for equal work, marriages as partnerships, and the many other ideas that feminism supports. What's the problem with the word?
I have a couple of ideas. First of all, we all know the feminist or "Femi-Nazi" stereotype: bra-burning, man-hating, military-boot-wearing, loud-mouthed butch feminist. No one wants to be thought of that way. I get it. But I think (hope) most of us also know that feminists aren't actually like that.
Also, a girl in a class of mine suggested that the word itself was the problem. Racists are people who think their race is better than others. Sexists think that their sex is better than others. So don't feminists think that women are better than men? We don't; of course not. Feminism is a movement that involves men and women, because honestly, equal treatment of women will improve the lives of women and men.
Maybe it's because the feminist movement is less visible these days. This could be changing, though, with the recent SlutWalks and all the publicity they've gotten, along with Occupy Wall Street and other politically active campaigning. (I would certainly call Mississippi's successful No on 26 campaign a feminist one, though everyone involved might not agree.) But, still, we have ideas of 1970s feminism as loud, in-your-face and everywhere (whether or not this is accurate; I wasn't around so I don't know). So maybe women today don't identify as feminist because they don't see themselves as involved in a larger movement. I know that it took me a couple of university classes, a large amount of reading and a whole lot of online searching to find the feminist community alive and well.
So, you tell me: Why do you or do you not identify as a feminist? What do you see as the defining characteristics of a feminist? And is it important, if you want to support equality of all people, that you identify as a feminist? Why or why not?
I have a couple of ideas. First of all, we all know the feminist or "Femi-Nazi" stereotype: bra-burning, man-hating, military-boot-wearing, loud-mouthed butch feminist. No one wants to be thought of that way. I get it. But I think (hope) most of us also know that feminists aren't actually like that.
Also, a girl in a class of mine suggested that the word itself was the problem. Racists are people who think their race is better than others. Sexists think that their sex is better than others. So don't feminists think that women are better than men? We don't; of course not. Feminism is a movement that involves men and women, because honestly, equal treatment of women will improve the lives of women and men.
Maybe it's because the feminist movement is less visible these days. This could be changing, though, with the recent SlutWalks and all the publicity they've gotten, along with Occupy Wall Street and other politically active campaigning. (I would certainly call Mississippi's successful No on 26 campaign a feminist one, though everyone involved might not agree.) But, still, we have ideas of 1970s feminism as loud, in-your-face and everywhere (whether or not this is accurate; I wasn't around so I don't know). So maybe women today don't identify as feminist because they don't see themselves as involved in a larger movement. I know that it took me a couple of university classes, a large amount of reading and a whole lot of online searching to find the feminist community alive and well.
So, you tell me: Why do you or do you not identify as a feminist? What do you see as the defining characteristics of a feminist? And is it important, if you want to support equality of all people, that you identify as a feminist? Why or why not?
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Personhood: Why MS's Victory is Important
First of all: Whooooooo!!!!! We did it!!!! I don't know if I've ever woken up singing and dancing, but I did today.
Ok. So why is this a big deal? We know that personhood initiatives are in the works in other states, and less than twelve hours after our victory, we know that personhood supporters are going to try to work this through our legislature (which is now even more Republican and anti-woman [not that Republican and anti-woman are synonymous, but in today's political climate, they are more than they aren't]). So how much of a victory is this?
A HUGE ONE! After failing twice in Colorado, Personhood USA handpicked Mississippi as the conservative and uneducated state that might just pass this initiative without taking the time to learn about it, or just by having strong anti-abortion feelings. They thought that we would just let them walk all over us, and we proved them absolutely wrong. We will not be condescended to as the dumb scum of the US in overalls and no shoes. We have shoes, we have brains, and we used them to get the word out about how dangerous Initiative 26 really was. As this article in the Huffington Post said,
The forces who brought Personhood before the public insulted the intellectual and cultural sensibilities of thousands of Mississippians. They assumed Mississippi would be a cake walk. They provided grandma's 1970's abortion language that didn't speak to many younger, yet conservative, Mississippians. They were sloppy in their organizing and flippant about their opposition; condescending. Their official Personhood website looks like my child's 4th grade class designed it.
Don't treat us like idiots, because we're not. We care, and we fought against this amendment in one of the most conservative states in the nation. If we can do it, other states can. Yes, the fight is just beginning, but our victory is huge (even the White House has commented on it), and I'm gonna take a day to celebrate and dance around with a song in my head because I am proud to be a Mississippian today, and tomorrow I can begin to fight for these rights in the rest of the country (as well as continuing the fight here). I'll end this post with my favorite quote from the article mentioned above:
There's a lesson here about showing up in Mississippi without your game face on.
Ok. So why is this a big deal? We know that personhood initiatives are in the works in other states, and less than twelve hours after our victory, we know that personhood supporters are going to try to work this through our legislature (which is now even more Republican and anti-woman [not that Republican and anti-woman are synonymous, but in today's political climate, they are more than they aren't]). So how much of a victory is this?
A HUGE ONE! After failing twice in Colorado, Personhood USA handpicked Mississippi as the conservative and uneducated state that might just pass this initiative without taking the time to learn about it, or just by having strong anti-abortion feelings. They thought that we would just let them walk all over us, and we proved them absolutely wrong. We will not be condescended to as the dumb scum of the US in overalls and no shoes. We have shoes, we have brains, and we used them to get the word out about how dangerous Initiative 26 really was. As this article in the Huffington Post said,
The forces who brought Personhood before the public insulted the intellectual and cultural sensibilities of thousands of Mississippians. They assumed Mississippi would be a cake walk. They provided grandma's 1970's abortion language that didn't speak to many younger, yet conservative, Mississippians. They were sloppy in their organizing and flippant about their opposition; condescending. Their official Personhood website looks like my child's 4th grade class designed it.
Don't treat us like idiots, because we're not. We care, and we fought against this amendment in one of the most conservative states in the nation. If we can do it, other states can. Yes, the fight is just beginning, but our victory is huge (even the White House has commented on it), and I'm gonna take a day to celebrate and dance around with a song in my head because I am proud to be a Mississippian today, and tomorrow I can begin to fight for these rights in the rest of the country (as well as continuing the fight here). I'll end this post with my favorite quote from the article mentioned above:
There's a lesson here about showing up in Mississippi without your game face on.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Personhood: Not Just in "Backwards" Mississippi
I'm so excited that the personhood amendment on the Mississippi ballot today is getting so much national attention; however, along with that attention has been a good ol' helping of Southern- and Mississippi-hating by people who believe all the stereotypes about the South.
On Rachel Maddow's blog, a recent article about personhood was followed by several comments from readers, including "Secede already!" Really? A bad initiative on the ballot in Mississippi is equivalent to terrible decisions made over a hundred years ago over slavery? Let's recap:
Mississippi is not the first state to vote on proposed personhood amendments. Colorado has voted on them twice, and voted them down twice.
Mississippians are not responsible for this initiative appearing on the ballot. Personhood USA is the group behind these initiatives in Colorado and Mississippi. Personhood USA is trying to push a national agenda against abortion, and they're doing it state by state. They are currently trying to get similar initiatives on the ballot in at least six other states, and have petitions to do the same in all fifty states. This well-funded, extremist group is working extremely hard to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they see these personhood measures as the best way to do it.
You may say, this is all true BUT didn't Mississippians have to sign a petition to get this on the ballot in the first place? True. Now, I never saw the petition, but from what I've heard, the petition basically said "Do you think abortion should be illegal?" It did not say "Do you think the State Constitution should be amended to to make every single fertilized egg a person?" It did not say, "Do you think birth control, IVF, stem cell research, and safe, medical treatment for dangerous pregnancies should be endangered?" It was a manipulation of Mississippi voters. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same way that the measures were put on the Colorado ballot, or the way that they are attempting to get them on others.
Even today, when we go to the polls, we are simply asked if a fertilized egg should now be defined as a person; there is no mention of the State Constitution being amended. Voters who have not been able to follow the local and national coverage will not be fully informed of what they are voting on.
So when news followers from other states make comments about how backwards Mississippians are and how we deserve everything we get because we are so dumb, ill-educated and extremely conservative, let's remind them that their states could soon be facing this same question on their ballot. Let's remind them that Personhood USA is a national group, not a Mississippi one, and that personhood initiatives are a national problem, not just a Mississippi problem.
And most importantly, let's go out today and VOTE NO on 26, and prove that Personhood USA can't just assume that because we are a traditionally conservative state that we will allow our voters to be manipulated by a group with our worst interests at heart.
On Rachel Maddow's blog, a recent article about personhood was followed by several comments from readers, including "Secede already!" Really? A bad initiative on the ballot in Mississippi is equivalent to terrible decisions made over a hundred years ago over slavery? Let's recap:
Mississippi is not the first state to vote on proposed personhood amendments. Colorado has voted on them twice, and voted them down twice.
Mississippians are not responsible for this initiative appearing on the ballot. Personhood USA is the group behind these initiatives in Colorado and Mississippi. Personhood USA is trying to push a national agenda against abortion, and they're doing it state by state. They are currently trying to get similar initiatives on the ballot in at least six other states, and have petitions to do the same in all fifty states. This well-funded, extremist group is working extremely hard to overturn Roe v. Wade, and they see these personhood measures as the best way to do it.
You may say, this is all true BUT didn't Mississippians have to sign a petition to get this on the ballot in the first place? True. Now, I never saw the petition, but from what I've heard, the petition basically said "Do you think abortion should be illegal?" It did not say "Do you think the State Constitution should be amended to to make every single fertilized egg a person?" It did not say, "Do you think birth control, IVF, stem cell research, and safe, medical treatment for dangerous pregnancies should be endangered?" It was a manipulation of Mississippi voters. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same way that the measures were put on the Colorado ballot, or the way that they are attempting to get them on others.
Even today, when we go to the polls, we are simply asked if a fertilized egg should now be defined as a person; there is no mention of the State Constitution being amended. Voters who have not been able to follow the local and national coverage will not be fully informed of what they are voting on.
So when news followers from other states make comments about how backwards Mississippians are and how we deserve everything we get because we are so dumb, ill-educated and extremely conservative, let's remind them that their states could soon be facing this same question on their ballot. Let's remind them that Personhood USA is a national group, not a Mississippi one, and that personhood initiatives are a national problem, not just a Mississippi problem.
And most importantly, let's go out today and VOTE NO on 26, and prove that Personhood USA can't just assume that because we are a traditionally conservative state that we will allow our voters to be manipulated by a group with our worst interests at heart.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Abortion, Adoption, and the Pregnancy in the Middle That No One's Talking About
Last night I attended the forum on Initiative 26 at the Ole Miss Law School. The panelists and many commenters brought up countless problems with the initiative: with the language, with the intent vs. the potential interpretation, and with the unintended consequences. And of course, there were many commenters from the Yes side who voiced their opinions. I didn't speak up at the forum because most of the time I was so flushed, angry and appalled that I couldn't have strung together a coherent sentence. I also didn't respond because most of the commenters from the No side who did respond voiced my opinions along with their own. But there's one response I wish I had made, and so even though the man I'm responding to will most likely never read this, I'm going to post my response here.
The issue of forcing rape victims to continue a pregnancy to term when they have been impregnated by their rapist came up, as it often does in these debates. More than one women spoke about how demeaning rape is, and how mentally, physically, and emotionally terrible it would be to carry a conceived-in-rape pregnancy. Then a local pastor spoke up. He was polite, and I think he truly believed what he was saying, but he was very naive. He said that he is an adoptive father, and that he knows many people in his congregation who, if a woman came to them and said, "I've been raped and I would like you to adopt my baby," they would be more than happy to adopt that child. I was annoyed by how easy he made the adoption process seem when we know it is not at all easy. And a couple of people responded to him. Cristen Hemmins, a panelist at the forum and a local activist for No on 26, pointed out the vast number of children in our country right now who are in need of adoption; why aren't these "good Christians" offering to adopt these children? Elizabeth Feder Hosey, the panel's organizer and the founder of a new student organization for reproductive justice, also spoke up, saying that "as a recently pregnant woman," she felt that no one who has not been pregnant should be able to tell women that they have to carry a pregnancy to term. Both of these responses were perfect, and should be enough. But in case they are not, I have another one.
We still have a wage gap in this country. Women make less than men when in the same jobs. And women who are mothers make less than women who are not. Women do not get paid maternity leave in this country. Most women who have babies have to use up their vacation time, time that should be spent on rest and relaxation, for their first weeks as sleep-deprived, emotionally and physically exhausted mothers. Other women use their sick leave, as if pregnancy were a disease. My mother, one of the hardest working women I know, someone who was both a great parent and is great at her job, has almost never taken a vacation from work. Now, I can't speak for the years before my sisters and I were born, but I can not recall her having taken a legitimate vacation from work ever when I was growing up. Why? Because she had to use her vacation time, as well as her sick leave, for her children. She took twelve weeks off when my older sister was born. Those twelve weeks were made up of accumulated vacation time that she had never taken for herself. When I was born, she took off twelve weeks from more accumulated vacation time. By the time my younger sister was born, she took off what little vacation time she had left, and the rest was unpaid sick/maternity leave. When we were growing up, she used her sick days, her personal days, her vacation days for the days when she needed to take us to the doctor, to stay home with us, to chaperone field trips. She took a huge pay cut to change jobs so that her job could accommodate these missed days for children.
So when people (and yes, they are usually men) say that women should carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, I ask them to think not just of the already living children in need of adoption. I ask them not to think only of the physical and emotional difficulties of living while pregnant. I ask them to also think of the financial strains you are putting on the woman. Just because a woman knows that at the end of this pregnancy she will pass the child along to someone else, doesn't change the fact that she will have to miss work for doctors' visits. It doesn't change the fact that she will have to take days off because sometimes she will be so sick and feel so terrible that she simply cannot make it to work. It doesn't change the fact that she will have to take unpaid time off from work to give birth. It doesn't change the fact that in order to keep making money, she will most likely have to work right up until the point she goes into labor (which, hopefully, won't occur at work, but very well could).
And in my opinion, the fact that she doesn't want this pregnancy, and the fact that she won't be raising a child at the end of this difficult nine months doesn't make this process easier on her. It makes it much, much more difficult.
When Initiative 26 supporters ask women to carry these pregnancies and to choose adoption, they don't think about the pregnancy. They don't think about the physical, emotional, and financial commitments the women are making. Because, of course, they aren't thinking about the women at all. But let's talk about the women being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies. And while we're at it, let's talk about the other women we aren't taking care of: the women who want their babies, the women who are working round the clock during the last months of pregnancy to make up for the unpaid time they are facing, the women who are running themselves ragged to be both parents and workers.
Before we force more women to work and live while pregnant, let's take care of the women who are choosing to work and live while pregnant, and let's give them some support.
The issue of forcing rape victims to continue a pregnancy to term when they have been impregnated by their rapist came up, as it often does in these debates. More than one women spoke about how demeaning rape is, and how mentally, physically, and emotionally terrible it would be to carry a conceived-in-rape pregnancy. Then a local pastor spoke up. He was polite, and I think he truly believed what he was saying, but he was very naive. He said that he is an adoptive father, and that he knows many people in his congregation who, if a woman came to them and said, "I've been raped and I would like you to adopt my baby," they would be more than happy to adopt that child. I was annoyed by how easy he made the adoption process seem when we know it is not at all easy. And a couple of people responded to him. Cristen Hemmins, a panelist at the forum and a local activist for No on 26, pointed out the vast number of children in our country right now who are in need of adoption; why aren't these "good Christians" offering to adopt these children? Elizabeth Feder Hosey, the panel's organizer and the founder of a new student organization for reproductive justice, also spoke up, saying that "as a recently pregnant woman," she felt that no one who has not been pregnant should be able to tell women that they have to carry a pregnancy to term. Both of these responses were perfect, and should be enough. But in case they are not, I have another one.
We still have a wage gap in this country. Women make less than men when in the same jobs. And women who are mothers make less than women who are not. Women do not get paid maternity leave in this country. Most women who have babies have to use up their vacation time, time that should be spent on rest and relaxation, for their first weeks as sleep-deprived, emotionally and physically exhausted mothers. Other women use their sick leave, as if pregnancy were a disease. My mother, one of the hardest working women I know, someone who was both a great parent and is great at her job, has almost never taken a vacation from work. Now, I can't speak for the years before my sisters and I were born, but I can not recall her having taken a legitimate vacation from work ever when I was growing up. Why? Because she had to use her vacation time, as well as her sick leave, for her children. She took twelve weeks off when my older sister was born. Those twelve weeks were made up of accumulated vacation time that she had never taken for herself. When I was born, she took off twelve weeks from more accumulated vacation time. By the time my younger sister was born, she took off what little vacation time she had left, and the rest was unpaid sick/maternity leave. When we were growing up, she used her sick days, her personal days, her vacation days for the days when she needed to take us to the doctor, to stay home with us, to chaperone field trips. She took a huge pay cut to change jobs so that her job could accommodate these missed days for children.
So when people (and yes, they are usually men) say that women should carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, I ask them to think not just of the already living children in need of adoption. I ask them not to think only of the physical and emotional difficulties of living while pregnant. I ask them to also think of the financial strains you are putting on the woman. Just because a woman knows that at the end of this pregnancy she will pass the child along to someone else, doesn't change the fact that she will have to miss work for doctors' visits. It doesn't change the fact that she will have to take days off because sometimes she will be so sick and feel so terrible that she simply cannot make it to work. It doesn't change the fact that she will have to take unpaid time off from work to give birth. It doesn't change the fact that in order to keep making money, she will most likely have to work right up until the point she goes into labor (which, hopefully, won't occur at work, but very well could).
And in my opinion, the fact that she doesn't want this pregnancy, and the fact that she won't be raising a child at the end of this difficult nine months doesn't make this process easier on her. It makes it much, much more difficult.
When Initiative 26 supporters ask women to carry these pregnancies and to choose adoption, they don't think about the pregnancy. They don't think about the physical, emotional, and financial commitments the women are making. Because, of course, they aren't thinking about the women at all. But let's talk about the women being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies. And while we're at it, let's talk about the other women we aren't taking care of: the women who want their babies, the women who are working round the clock during the last months of pregnancy to make up for the unpaid time they are facing, the women who are running themselves ragged to be both parents and workers.
Before we force more women to work and live while pregnant, let's take care of the women who are choosing to work and live while pregnant, and let's give them some support.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)