40 Years and We're Still Fighting for This?

Wow. Over a month (coming up on two actually) without a post on this blog.

To be honest, I got a little overwhelmed, feeling like I had to write about "Important Issues" on this blog. I often wanted to write but was afraid that my topics weren't feminist enough, and I found myself not writing at all, and feeling guilty for not keeping up the blog.

I decided to take a break and start a new blog, a blog where I could write about anything and everything, whenever I felt like it. And I really enjoy it. I don't feel restricted by a theme or topic. I think eventually, I may just merge this blog into the new one, since writing about feminism fits pretty easily under the "writing about anything and everything" umbrella. But I'm not ready to let this one go just yet. So here we go with the first post!

I was going to write about this piece, A Letter to the Guy Who Harassed Me Outside the Bar, because it's awesome. And you should absolutely read it. Everyone should read it. But then I found this: Fifteen Women (and a Few Men) on Aborting.

Today is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and abortion rights are still very much (maybe even more so?) in danger. In my home state, our governor and legislators are actively trying to shut down Mississippi's only abortion clinic. My Facebook feed today was full of women (women I'm so proud of, by the way) standing outside the clinic in Jackson with signs saying, "This clinic stays open!" and "You trust me with an assault rifle but not my own uterus?" Diane Derzis, the owner of our clinic in Jackson, said, "...while Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, it is totally inaccessible in Mississippi." (For more on this, check out this video from MSNBC.)

Photo courtesy of Cristen Hemmins, an amazing advocate
in Mississippi.

With abortion rights still very much in question, I think it's important for women (and men) to share their stories and experiences, and that's what this article does. The piece is full of short stories about all types of women who have all types of feelings about their abortions. Some women just didn't want to have children. Others felt they had no choice. This particular quote broke my heart, "I was made that there wasn't some kind of support system that would allow me to raise the child not in total poverty." (BTW, did anyone notice that in Obama's inaugural speech, when he mentioned a person in poverty, he specifically said she? Because he did. Because that's accurate. Women and children in poverty, often because of the lack of support for mothers in this country.)

What I love about this piece is that it's not full of emotional stories. Or, I should say, only emotional stories. One woman simply write about the difficulty of paying for the abortion. The point of the article is that abortions are complicated and the lives of the women who have them are complicated. There are lots of reasons to have an abortion. For lots of women, abortions are the right decision. And I think the best reasoning I've read in a long time for why abortion should remain a legal and viable choice for women to make for themselves came in story #9, written by a woman who had an early abortion and then had children later in life:

"Being pregnant is like having a parasite literally sucking the life out of you. You should be totally onboard."

The Mindy Project and Weird Conclusions

So, I've been watching The Mindy Project, Mindy Kaling's new show, and mostly I enjoy it. I didn't think I would since the previews made it look like her whole life was about finding a man. And I was sort of right; Mindy can't get it together when it comes to relationships. But it doesn't portray her whole life as falling apart because of this. She's a good doctor and she has a fun relationship with many of her colleagues. So the fact that a large part of her energy is focused on relationships with men doesn't completely bother me, since it's the main part of her life that isn't working the way she wants it to.

But I have to say that the latest episode, "Thanksgiving," kind of disappointed me. For one thing, she spent most of the episode worried about whether or not she and Josh, the guy she's been dating, are exclusive or not. This bothers me mainly because when she met this guy, she didn't like him, and I'm still not sure when he went from being annoying to charming (in her eyes; in mine he's only annoying).

The worst part of the episode had to be Betsy's storyline. She took the British doctor from their practice (honestly, I don't know what his name is) home with her for Thanksgiving. She told him that she doesn't enjoy spending time with her family because they treat her like a child. When they arrive, everyone is given a beer except Betsy; her father hands her a glass of strawberry milk instead. Even her brother, who as far as I could tell was younger than her, got a beer. They also insist that Betsy sing a song about Thanksgiving that she wrote when she was about 4 years old. Betsy gets angry and storms out and British Doctor follows her upstairs.

This is the part of the episode that made me so angry. He talked about getting treated as an adult too early and not having a childhood. He says that being treated like a child isn't the worst thing in the world. And the episode ends with Betsy, twenty-something adult Betsy, singing her weird, childish turkey song to her whole family.

WHAT?!?! The moral of this story is let your family treat like you a child for your whole life? Really?

I understand that families aren't easy to deal with, and everybody has something about their family that they'd prefer to hide or never talk about. And some families have a hard time communicating with each other. But are we really saying it's better to get treated like a child every time you go home for a holiday than to attempt to sit down and have an adult conversation with your parents and siblings?

This week, you disappointed me, The Mindy Project. I don't expect all my feminist dreams and needs to be met by this one show, but I would expect a show written by a smart, capable woman, and about smart, capable women, to understand that adult women being treated like children is not okay. The idea that women need other people making decisions for them ("You don't want a beer, you want strawberry milk") is what gives us anti-woman legislation ("You don't really want an abortion, you just need to hear your baby's heartbeat first").

I'm paying attention, The Mindy Project. Let's get it together.

Cards and Candidates, or, Keep Talking

Ahhh! Election day!!

I found myself at a card game last night with several Mitt Romney supporters. While I mostly stayed out of the politics conversation, other than predictions about who would win, I found myself wishing I had spoken more. This was a group of mostly men who are older than I am, and who I don't know very well. There was one other woman there, probably about my age, and a couple of guys around my age. The rest were older, established men who I'm pretty sure are all wealthy. Wealthy Mississippi businessmen voting for Romney? I'm not surprised. And I wasn't insulted, and I didn't really feel like talking about the election. We were all nervous, no one was 100% confident in their candidate's victory, and I just wanted to play poker.

But I do wish I had brought up a couple of things. I wish I had pointed out that I can not, can not, vote for someone who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. I can not vote for someone who has supported/still supports personhood. I can not vote for someone who says they are for small government, but thinks it is OK to for legislators (or employers!) to make decisions about a woman's healthcare coverage. I can not vote for someone who refuses to come out with a stance on fair pay for women.

I don't wish I had made these points because I think I would have changed any minds. I don't wish I had gotten the table into a heated debate. But I do wonder what these men would have said when faced with a young woman legitimately concerned about her future in a Romney administration. I wonder what their reactions would have been to my concern about my place in the world, financially and socially, with extreme Republicans in control. I do think that these issues do not cross the minds of these men often, and I wish I had seen their reactions when forcing them to think about, even for a second, my side, a woman's side.

So today, on election day, don't be afraid to talk. Even if everyone has already voted, even if you're exhausted, these issues are important and we need to talk about them. Always.

The Abortion Question and what the VP Answers Reveal

I know I'm so late getting to this, but I really want to talk about the Vice-Presidential debate, and specifically, the abortion question that Martha Raddatz asked at the end. 

First of all, it did kind of bother me that she formed the question in terms of religion. She asked,

We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country. Please talk personally about this, if you could.

We live in a country that, officially, separates church and state. We live in a country that is supposed to advocate for religious freedom. We live in a country that is supposed to keep God (any and all of them) out of our legal practices. But of course, we don't actually live in that country. We live in a country in which a large number (the majority?) of our political leaders constantly make laws based on their religious (Christian) beliefs, regardless of how those laws may affect others with different beliefs. So while I hate, hate, the way she asked this question, I understand why she did it.

Now, their answers. Paul Ryan answered first. He talked about his Catholic religion informing his belief that life begins at conception, and he said, "I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do." This answer makes me so angry, mainly because there are so many people who think he's absolutely right. It's a total disregard for the separation of church and state. And I think this answer proves that in all things, not just abortion, Ryan has no problem pushing a purely Christian (and of course, that means whatever he deems to be Christian) agenda in his work as a politician. He also managed to bring up how women wanting contraceptive coverage, and Obama in supporting them, are infringing upon his, and others', religious liberty:

Look at what they're doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.

You know, because employers should have the right to tell their employees which medications to take, and for what reasons. Because that makes sense. (To Paul Ryan: the insurance company's pay for that, not the Catholic institutions. The institutions, and you, need to get out of women's personal lives.)

Joe Biden, on the other hand, also mentioned his Catholic faith and how it affects his personal life (presumably, I'd say, he would not want anyone in his family having an abortion), but went on to say,

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the—the congressman. I—I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that—women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that. 

I have been trying to go back and find a full transcript of both answers, which I haven't found yet, but I'm pretty sure that Biden is the only one who even used the word "women". He acknowledges that women have a right to make their own decisions, and that he has no right to be involved. By mentioning women, he acknowledges that the abortion question is one that he, as a man, should not really have a say in. (As my mom always says, "As far as I'm concerned, if they aren't gonna ever be pregnant, they just need to keep their mouths shut.")

He also acknowledges keeping his religion out of his politics. Though I was disappointed with the religious framing of the question, I was yelling "Yes!" at my computer screen when he mentioned refusing to make laws based on religion. 

I also loved when Martha Raddatz directly asked Paul Ryan if those who do believe in legal abortion should be worried with a Romney administration. He looked shocked, and then said, "We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination." You know, like how all those people have voted and agreed to grant full human rights to fertilized eggs. Oh wait, those measures have ALL been voted down?

The truth is, we absolutely should be worried about reproductive rights with a Romney/Ryan victory. And we should also worry about an aggressively Christian agenda. We already know that Romney doesn't care much about 47% percent of the population. I'm guessing non-Christians make up a pretty large percentage of that group. 

For more reading on the VP Debate and abortion question, check out:

This one, with its mention of what Ryan's "bean" comments implicate, is my favorite. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/of-babies-and-beans-paul-ryan-on-abortion.html  

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/144931/paul_ryans_stance_on_abortion

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/11/veep_debate_martha_raddatz_asks_paul_ryan_and_joe_biden_about_abortion_ryan.html

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2012/10/abortion-in-the-vice-presidential-debate.html

America Victim Blames So Easy

"Some girls rape easy."Wisconsin  Rep. Roger Rivard said this. When trying to clarify his statement, he said,

"[My father] also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,' " Rivard said. "Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh yeah I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'"

I'm so sick of this conversation about women changing their minds about sex the next day, or down the road. Sex is consensual in the moment, then the woman changes her mind and calls it rape the next day, because she feels guilty, because she feels ashamed. I'm sure this has happened, but let's stop talking about it like this makes up the majority of rape accusations. There are several problems with this narrative.

1. This implies that women should, and do, feel guilty about sex. Of course women feel guilty about sex, especially young women, when their culture is constantly telling them to be sexy but don't have sex, to be desirable but not to feel desire. Women are more connected with the image they are putting out, with how they look, than how they feel. Peggy Orenstein, in her book Schoolgirls, spoke to one young girl who told her about a "hooking up" situation with a boy. When asked how it felt, the girl responded, "I felt like I looked good."

2. This narrative leaves every victim wide open to accusations of lying about a rape. This allows policemen, parents, bystanders to ask "Are you sure you didn't want it?" It allows people to call into question what the woman was wearing, if she was drunk, how she was behaving, if she agreed to some sexual encounter and then changed her mind. It calls into question every woman who is brave enough to report a rape.

3. This narrative also leaves out men in several ways. First, it doesn't allow for the possibility that a woman did feel ashamed, because she was coerced by another person. But this narrative paints the guy (or the woman if it's a man, but I'll get to that in a minute) as a victim. HE just had sex and then suddenly she's going back on everything that happened, she is lying, she is embarrassed and trying to cover her own ass. He is just an innocent bystander. Also, this narrative doesn't allow for a male victim, either as a victim of rape, or as someone who feels confused or ashamed about sex after the fact. Men have feelings too, people. I know men who have had sexual encounters that they regretted, or were confused about. I know a man who lost his virginity to a confident, aggressive older girl, a girl who didn't know he was a virgin and didn't ask if he wanted to have sex. And afterward, he was suddenly sad that he had lost his virginity in this quick way. Some people, especially if the genders in this scenario were reversed, would absolutely call this rape. He doesn't call it rape (and he doesn't have to). But my point is that he has never really been able to work through any regretful or confused feelings about his first sexual encounter because in our culture, he should be nothing but excited about having sex. And a girl initiated it? Awesome! He's a stud. End of story. It's just not fair.

4. In the same way that this narrative doesn't allow men to feel bad about sex, it doesn't allow women to feel good about it. It says that women should feel bad about sex. It says that if their parents find out they had sex, of course they are going to lie about it, because they should be ashamed and secretive about it. It doesn't allow for women to enjoy sex or for young women to admit that they are responsible and safe about sex.

We need to talk about sex, openly and honestly. We need to acknowledge that women feel desire the same as men, and that men feel confusion about sex the same as women. We need conversations that acknowledge sex as something good and pleasurable (and to be done safely and responsibly), instead of as something bad and shameful.

Who Run the World? Girls

I have been flipping through the latest issue of Time magazine and I was reading Bill Clinton's article, "The Case for Optimism," in which he lists the five ways he says are evidence that the world is getting better all the time. Reason #4 is equality for women all over the world. He mentions the improvements for women in countries like Rwanda, Malawi, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. I especially like his discussion of the ways in which improvements in women's lives are beneficial not only to the women themselves, but to their larger families, communities, and societies.

When I first came across this article, I was reminded of how much we take for granted in America. The problems these women are dealing with are totally different, and in many ways more basic, than the problems many of us are dealing with. And it's probably a typical American reaction for me to see the subtitle "#4: Women Rule" and think, What? That's not happening at all, because I was only thinking about the anti-woman movement that has dominated my mind, my writing and my (little bit of) activism the past year or so. Yet there's so much more going on outside of my world.

Part of me didn't want to write this post. Because part of me was thinking, If you focus on these women who are fighting for rights that seem so basic to us, then our fights will seem petty and unnecessary, or even greedy. Don't give any ammo to those people saying that women have been fooled by the Obama campaign into thinking that their rights are in danger.

But it doesn't have to be them or us. It is not about whose problems are more worthy. The point is that women deserve equal rights. In less developed countries, the most immediate rights to be fought for may be the right to work in decent and safe conditions, or the right to seek political leadership. In our country, we have to fight for what is being attacked: the right to safe and legal abortion, the right to preventative health care. We have to fight for the right to speak up without being called "sluts" or "feminazis". We have to defend our right to be angry, and loud, and not always submissive or demure.

The rights of women are important. Everywhere. Different women may be fighting for different rights in different places at different times, but we are all human, and we all deserve to be heard and respected. As Bill Clinton said in his article, "No society can truly flourish if it stifles the dreams and productivity of half its population."

Stop talking! Men are around!

On the way to work this morning, I heard a radio host talking about some alleged controversy between Nikki Minaj and Mariah Carey on American Idol. I don't watch American Idol and I'm not really interested in the controversy. What interested me was the way this host (who was a woman, if that matters) talked about it. She said that people are talking about controversy because, apparently, whenever Nikki Minaj tries to critique a performer, Mariah Carey interrupts and/or talks over her. Then the host said something like, "Men don't like it when women talk over each other. Think: The View."

What? The reason that Mariah needs to stop talking over Nikki is because men don't like it? Not because it's rude, or inconsiderate? Not because it probably makes for a bad/ confusing/ incomprehensible critique for the performer?

Then she throws in this comment about The View, and that men don't like it because the hosts are constantly talking over each other. Guess what, radio person? I don't really like The View because the women talk over each other. And I'm a woman. It's just frustrating to watch sometimes. If I care enough about what they're talking about, sure, I'll watch, but I tend to think "Wait, she was saying something interesting! Stop interrupting! STOP!"

Truthfully, my mother, my sisters and I tend to talk over each other in the same way. It drives my boyfriend crazy, true, but it also drives me crazy, and yet I still do it.  Sorry. We are comfortable with each other and this is the way we tend to have conversations. We aren't going to change it because my boyfriend, or my sister's boyfriend, or anyone else is around. The way we talk to each other has nothing to do with other people or what they might think of us.

I get so sick of the media always bringing up what men may think of what women do, and imply that women should constantly be concerned with this. And maybe I'm unaware, maybe there are more women out there who really are censoring themselves based on what men might think. But I don't know many of those women. And the older I get, the more I think that there just aren't as many women out there doing that. (Girls are a different story, I would argue, but that's a whole different age group and for a whole different argument/post.)

What do you think? Am I just lucky to happen to be around women who don't constantly care about what men are thinking? Are there more women listening to the radio this morning thinking that they need to be careful about talking over each other when men are around? Or is the media just feeding us more bullshit and playing into very old, very tired stereotypes that don't exist?

Tavi Gevinson is My Hero

Do I need to say more? Maybe, especially if you don't know who she is.

Tavi Gevinson. She was a fashion blogger at the age of 11. I first read about her in this article from Bitch magazine, published in the Old issue in 2010 (scroll about 2/3 of the way down to find Tavi mentioned; when you see a picture of a 13-year-old girl showing off her clothes, that's her). Apparently a lot of people thought her blog was too smart/clever to actually be written by a 13-year-old; others simply thought she was unimportant because of her age. I kind of missed out on the haters, since I didn't know about her until later.

Now, however, 16-year-old Tavi is doing really well (she was doing well before, of course, there just seem to be fewer haters now). She has started an online magazine for girls, Rookie, and she has a book out, Rookie Yearbook One, which I haven't read but looks totally awesome even though I'm well out of middle and high school. She was recently a BUST magazine cover girl (looking both very adult and very much like Michelle Williams, right?). She has given her own TED talk.

What made me decide to write about her today? Well, thanks to Jezebel, I discovered that she recently appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show, and her interview is totally cute, especially the part where she and Jimmy practice their "bitchface." (I wanted to get the video on this page, but couldn't figure it out since it's not on YouTube, so do yourself a favor and click that link so you can watch it. Absolutely worth the 4 minutes.)

Basically, at 16 years old, Tavi Gevinson is doing plenty of the things I am still just dreaming of at 24. She has started a magazine. She studies and advocates feminism. She is very comfortable with herself and with her life, and aims to make others (especially girls) feel the same about themselves. She fights against the media's narrow representation of women and girls.

I'm so happy she is getting lots of attention for doing such great things, and I think everyone should know who she is.

She. Is. My. Hero.

Since I couldn't get the Jimmy Fallon interview video, I will leave you with her TED talk.

Legitimate Rape vs... What?

I woke up yesterday to an e-mail informing me that Congressman Todd Akin (a Congressman I had not heard of until today) was on TV this weekend talking about abortion. When asked about exceptions for rape and incest, he said:

"It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape is] really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

Thanks, Todd Akin! I was really afraid that rape could sometimes result in pregnancy, but now I realize that if I am legitimately raped, my body will wave a magic wand and make that unwanted fertilized egg poof! disappear.

Phrases like "legitimate rape" are so dangerous because they imply that there is another kind of rape: the illegitimate kind. I'm not sure what Akin thinks would classify as illegitimate rape, but I have a few guesses: a rape that occurred when a woman said yes to "hooking up" but then changed her mind; a rape that occurred when a woman drank too much and wasn't capable of making decisions; a rape that occurred when a woman went out to a bar in a tight or revealing outfit; a rape that was committed by someone the woman used to have sex with. Guess what Todd Akin? These situations are all rape. A sexual activity forced on someone who doesn't want it, whether through violence, coercion, drugs, etc., is rape. This is why we worked so hard to get the FBI to change their definition of rape, to get rid of the phrase "forcible rape." It just doesn't make sense (a sentiment echoed by President Obama).

Phrases like "legitimate rape" are dangerous because not only do they imply other kinds of rape, but they put doubt and blame on the victim's shoulders. It's just another way of bringing up questions like "Were you asking for it?" "What were you wearing?" "But you went to his apartment, right?" And now with Todd Akin saying that he understands this all from doctors (I'd like to know which doctors!), he could really have believing that their pregnant daughter can't have been raped, because otherwise her body would have performed the magical expulsion of the rape-egg. He's completely ignoring science and biology, and he's doing it in a dangerous way that could have real, terrible consequences for women.

Survivors of rape have so much shit to deal with; let's not add Todd Akin's idiotic understanding of the female body or the shame and blame he would impose on it.

Terms of Endearment (Not the Movie!)

I randomly found myself in a conversation on Facebook today about how to speak respectfully to women. The thread started with a man asking for advice on how to advise his sons, but naturally it digressed from there. The part I became interested in was how to refer to a woman in different situations. Of course, people's feelings on this differ, and depend on how, where and probably even when someone was raised. So first, my personal opinion:

1. I don't like to be called "ma'am" by my peers. To me, "ma'am" should be used in professional situations, with people you don't know well, or when deferring to an authority.

Once, a friend of mine (who is my age) called me "ma'am," and I laughed because I assumed he was making a joke about my being bossy (which I am) and was saying "ma'am" to make fun of me. But then he pointed out that he had been taught to refer to all women and girls as "ma'am," which to me sounds ridiculous. Others in the Facebook conversation said that they teach their children to call people "ma'am" by calling them "ma'am." Thoughts?

2. I don't like to be referred to as "sweetie," "pumpkin," "baby," or any other traditionally feminine term of endearment by anyone I don't know well. Anyone. I. Don't. Know. Well. Men or women, old or young. I realize that many women don't mind being called these things by other women, but I do. It feels diminutive and it just gives me a little shudder.

When I started talking to and then dating my boyfriend, I was really bothered by the amount of times he called me "cutie," "sweetie," etc. I told him so and, while he didn't understand it at all, he tried to respect my feelings and stop using those terms. Eventually, after dating for a while, I began to get more comfortable with him using terms like that, and came to actually enjoy one or two of them. But that's someone that I have an intimate relationship with. There's just about no one else who can call me these things and get away with it. My dad can, sometimes, depending on my mood. My Uncle John, who may be the coolest man I know, has always referred to me, my sisters, my cousin (his daughter) as "my baby" (Like, "Hey, my baby, good to see you!"). Somehow he pulls this off, and he just sounds cool and super sweet, and it's never bothered me. I don't know anyone else that I would feel the same way about.

3. I don't think it's appropriate for a customer, male or female, to refer to a waitress with a term like "sweetie". To me, it comes across as either diminutive, or like you're behaving as if you know this stranger really well. It also just makes me cringe because the server is working. I don't want to be called "sweetie" at work; why should she? I think it's totally appropriate to refer to the server as "ma'am" (though I admit I don't usually do this, I've been trying to think how I usually refer to female servers and I think I tend to avoid it and just say "yes" and "please" without any terms attached).

Anyway, I'm not stating my opinion because I think it's the best one; I'm just trying to start a conversation. I've been told that I'm way too strict on this. I just don't see "cutie" or "sweetie" as terms that mean anything except "little girl" unless they are coming from someone with whom I have a long-term relationship (whether familial or other). But some people, like my boyfriend, say "sweetie" to truly mean "You are a sweet person." So I just want to get your opinions: how do you feel about terms of endearment for women? When are they ok and when are they not? Which ones personally bother you?

Birth Control Users: You MIGHT Be a Terrorist

I know I'm a little late to the party but I have to comment on this anyway. Last week, I saw plenty of tweets and headlines mentioning Rep. Mike Kelly and his comparison of birth control coverage to attacks on the US such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11, but I just now actually watched the video of his speech.

So, as of August 1, the Affordable Care Act will provide free birth control coverage to women who have health insurance. And, according to Mike Kelly, August 1, 2012 should take its place in history alongside Dec. 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 as an attack on this country. "I want you to remember August 1, 2012: The attack on our religious freedom."

Come on!! I mean seriously, even if you are so against the idea of birth control, birth control coverage as a part of health insurance, or even the idea of women having sex in general, isn't this comparison just a tad extreme?

Let's break it down, shall we?

Dec. 7, 1941: Japan manages a sneak attack on a US Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
Results: 8 battleships damaged, 4 sunk; 188 US aircraft destroyed; 1,282 Americans wounded; 2,402 Americans killed.

September 11, 2001: multiple buildings damaged or collapsed, including the two towers of the World Trade Center; citizens from over 90 countries were killed in the attack; 2,977 people were killed.

August 1, 2012: 47 million women gained access to expanded healthcare coverage; women gained coverage for preventative services such as check-ups, screenings, STI testing and counseling; of course, contraceptive coverage without co-pays; 0 battleships damaged; citizens from 0 foreign countries killed; 0 Americans killed.

I don't care how you feel about contraception, this is a ridiculous and offensive comparison. Taking care of America's women and their health is not the same as a surprise attack resulting in thousands of deaths. Who are the terrorists in this situation? Women asking for coverage? Doctors supportive of coverage? President Obama? Probably, from the standpoint of the Republican party, all of the above.

Birth control coverage does not equal an attack on religious freedom. What do the Republicans think of my right to healthcare? They don't. How does my receiving birth control coverage from my health care provider affect Rep. Kelly's religious freedom? My birth control pack isn't blocking his entry into his church. My healthcare provider isn't sending bomb threats to his church. I'm taking a pill, I'm not getting pregnant, and as far as I can tell, the lives affected by this are mine, my boyfriend's and my mother's (because she helps me pay for it).

Birth control coverage does not equal a terrorist attack. To Representative Kelly: Everyone in the United States was affected in some way by Pearl Harbor. It led to our entry into a war. It killed our friends and families, and even those with no direct ties to people killed, it caused fear and uncertainty, and the war affected everyone. Everyone in the US was affected in some way by 9/11. We were all terrified, we were all unsure, and, again, it led to a war. It led to taxpayers' money funding a war they didn't all agree with.

Women gaining birth control coverage does not affect Americans in these same ways. No one is dead because of it. Everyone will save money by helping women receive preventative (and cheaper) care instead of (more expensive) treatment for problems that went ignored because women couldn't afford to see the doctor.

If Representative Mike Kelly had more respect for both women and American history, he might think twice before making this kind of offensive statement. Instead, he is interested in playing with (and attempting to manipulate) the emotions of Americans, using horrific events in America's past to push an anti-Obama, anti-woman agenda.


See also: Rachel Maddow's commentary on this ridiculousness.

Big Girls Don't Cry, They Get...Angry!

Recently, Jessica Valenti wrote a piece for The Nation, "The Upside of Ugly." The article is about a young girl (14 I believe) who had plastic surgery to alter her ears (which stuck out), her nose and chin. Valenti discusses America's obsession with beauty and looking good, and she discusses the idea of "self-esteem" as a "cure-all for girls." Though she never really defines it, she seems to equate self-esteem with feeling good and proud of the way one looks; she doesn't really talk about being proud of your work ethic, intelligence, etc., something that some commenters noticed and were bothered by. But her point is clear: the problem is not just that our culture expects us to be beautiful, it's that "we never seem to question the idea that feeling beautiful is a worthy goal in the first place." And then she gets to the real point of her article:

Girls don't need more self-esteem or feel-good mantras about loving themselves—what they need is a serious dose of righteous anger. But instead of teaching young women to recognize and utilize their very justifiable rage, we tell them to smile and love themselves.

In the comments section, one person's notes stuck out specifically to me. He (I think this commenter was a man) wrote: "Yeah that's all we need is a bunch of fists walking around this 'fucked-up country.'...There might be a third way: authentic, optimistic femininity that acknowledges the role women have always had in raising the standard of a culture without spitting in its face."

What? Because women are "naturally" nurturing and sweet, we should expect them to rise above that base and male emotion of anger?! Really?

I don't understand why people are so bothered by the idea of women being angry. And, news flash, we are angry, folks. We may not all write about it and force it on our Facebook friends, like I do, but we are angry. We may not always acknowledge it to ourselves, and we may not all be angry about "big" things such as public policy or media representation, but women are constantly angry with the way the world treats them. Some women are angry when their husbands assume that they are going to watch the kids over the weekend while they go play golf with their guy friends. Some women are angry when their bosses treat them differently than their male colleagues. Some women are angry when a strange man whistles or catcalls at them on the street.

I'm angry. I'm angry that so many of this country's politicians want to cut funding for women's organizations like Planned Parenthood. I'm angry that, despite his best efforts to ignore what he's been taught, my boyfriend still sometimes thinks that I just have too many emotions. I'm angry when someone (male or female) asks me when my boyfriend and I are going to get married, but never ask me when I'm going to start that magazine I've talked about, or when I'm going to start submitting pieces to magazines. I'm angry when someone says, "Just wait until you're pregnant..." because they assume I will someday have children. I'm angry when I hear about men who think it's ok to "paternalistically" kiss employees on the top of the head. I'm angry when women get blamed for being raped.

And there's nothing wrong with anger. Anger led women to fight for the right to vote. Anger led women like Gloria Steinem to put their voices out into the world and let everyone know that women are people and do expected to be treated accordingly. Anger led me to start writing about and fighting against the personhood amendment in Mississippi, and we defeated it.

So I think Jessica Valenti got it exactly right. We need a little anger.

50 Shades of Misconception

This post was originally titled "50 Shades of Wrong" but I decided to change it because I didn't want someone who only saw the title to think that I was saying BDSM is wrong, erotica is wrong, or that reading this book makes one wrong. I really just want to convey that the book is problematic and does not depict an accurate BDSM relationship, while it does depict (in my opinion) a romanticized manipulative and emotionally abusive relationship.

Yes, I did it. I read Fifty Shades of Grey. And before I talk about the problems, I admit, as erotica, it's pretty hot. The sex is clearly fantasy sex: Christian has no refractory period, ever, he can just get it up and have sex twice in an hour, ten times a day if necessary; Ana, who has not only never had sex, but has never had any sexual contact resulting in an orgasm before meeting Christian, manages to have mind-blowing, multiple orgasm sex the night she loses her virginity; and Ana, again, who has done pretty much nothing with boys other than making out, manages to give Christian, an older, sexually experienced man, a perfect blow job on her first try. I call bullshit on all of the above. But it's erotica, so we'll let it go, and we'll all enjoy the fantasy.

The problem comes with, well, everything else in the book. Now, I have to say, I know very little about the BDSM community. I know very little about kinks, fetishes, etc.; most of my knowledge comes whatever questions pop up on Dan Savage's Savage Love podcast and column. And yet, even I know that most people with kinks, fetishes, etc., don't have those desires as a result of abuse. Yet we are clearly supposed to see Christian's Dominant desires as a problem to be fixed, something he needs to work through and move past. And I just don't believe that this is the case for most kinky people. Most kinky people simply need to find other kinky people who share their desires, who are compatible with them in the bedroom, who respect and understand what they want and need from a partner.

What's more disturbing to me is the aspect of control that Christian wants to exert over Ana in every aspect of her life, whenever she's around. Now, after a quick Wikipedia search for "dominance and submission", I see that this does happen in these relationships sometimes; part of the fun/arousal seems to derive from playing out the dominant/submissive roles outside of the bedroom as well as in it. And since we know Christian has had several d/s relationships in the past, this is something that he seems to be used to. So it's not wrong or a problem for him to want it; the problem is the fact that Ana does not want it. But because Christian is so drawn to her, and she to him, they just can't let go of each other, even with all these compatibility issues staring them in the face.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! I'm so sick of novels romanticizing this kind of destructive, controlling relationship. Christian talks about his immediate need and overwhelming desire to protect Ana. He's constantly reminding her that she needs to eat, that she shouldn't get drink, that she should take care of her body. He glares at her when he sees she's not eating enough. He is jealous of all the other men in her life, men who are just friends. And, because he's super, ridiculously wealthy (fantasy, remember, fantasy) he basically stalks her. And she's not really that bothered by it. She wrestles with the idea occasionally, wondering how he found her or how creepy it is, but she ultimately lands on the side of, "But he's so hot and he must follow me because he wants me and awww how great!" Even later in the book, when he's admitted that he is willing to try for more of a romantic relationship (as opposed to just a sexual, dom/sub relationship), he still exerts this control. She goes to visit her mother for a few days, and she tells him that she is going because she can't think clearly around him, because she needs to think through and make decisions about their relationship on her own. And yet he still shows up, having found out which hotel she and her mother and drinking in one night. And she's turned on. This is fucked up. He is stalking her. It's not romantic. It's not sexy when she discovers he followed her because he sends an e-mail asking how many drinks she's gonna have. It's none of his business how many drinks she is having.

The most upsetting part, to me, is the end. Ana has spent the whole book trying to decide if she can agree to be Christian's submissive, and she finally says she needs to see what "punishment" really is. She has let Christian start dominating her in some ways, but she says she needs to see what the worst can be. Now, as far as the BDSM community goes, I think Christian does everything right. Read this description, a letter written to Dan Savage for his column, by a reader of the book:

In the last chapters, she asks him to go ahead and do his worst. He says he doesn't need to do those things with her. He says he doesn't think she'll like it. She assures him she wants to see what it's like. He checks in with her carefully. He reminds her about her safeword. Then he canes her, unties her, and offers her aftercare.

Response? "You're fucked up," she tells him. "You need to sort your shit out." Then she walks out. The End.

She doesn't use the safe word. She takes a beating that she's not enjoying. And then she decides to leave him, that she can't be with him. So even though I don't think she can be angry at him about what happened (he gave her all the outs a responsible BDSMer is supposed to) at this point, I was just like, "Great! She recognized that they're incompatible, and that she needs to get away, clear her head and move on. She's not into kink, she's not into pain for pleasure, and she needs to be with someone else (and so does Christian)." However, the book ends like this:
"The pain is indescribable...Grief. This is grief...the physical pain from the bite of a belt is nothing, nothing compared to this devastation."

This sounds to me like a woman coming out of an abusive relationship. This is a woman who has been manipulated (and Christian definitely manipulated her, interrupting her conversations to have sex with her, using "sex as a weapon" [direct quote], etc.), controlled, and now she would rather take agree to a sexualized beating (from which he, but not she, derives sexual pleasure) from this man rather than be without him.

If this trilogy's intention, if the author's intention, were to either explore the BDSM world in a responsible, accurate way, or to explore an abusive relationship, which happens to involve dominance and submission, then this might be off to an interesting start. But from what I hear, this series has a happy ending in which Christian and Ana somehow manage to be together. I'm curious to find out how the author makes that work, so if anyone has a copy of the other two books (so I don't have to add to all the money these books are making), let me know.

So even though I appreciate the hot sex scenes, and I appreciate that the book's popularity may be leading many more women to try more adventurous things in the bedroom, I think I have to agree with this picture I saw today, via Twitter.

Frustration Alert! Childless Women are STILL People!

I was going to write a different post today, one I'll probably get into in the next couple of days, but doing a quick google search (trying to find childless women in pop culture), I came across this terrible article, "Why bosses are right to distrust women who don't want children," by Carol Sarler. Now the article I discovered is from 2009, but it's clear from scrolling through her more recent headlines that she often writes about men and women in very stereotypical, masculine vs. feminine terms. And sometimes I think I should just ignore the people who truly believe in old-fashioned gender roles. But reading this article was so insulting to me, a blow straight to the gut, that I had to comment.

She opens with discussing how she respects a woman's right to choose "all things at all times," she still finds women who don't want children to be "weird." Fine. That's her right, and many, many (most?) people in our society would agree with her. But then she says that "recent studies" (she provides no links, or study names, or methodology) find that childless women (specifically those childless by choice), are distrusted in the workplace, seen as cold, and less likely to get promoted. OK for one thing, she's just wrong. While most women still make less than men in equal jobs, the wage gap between childless women and men is much smaller than that between mothers and men; childless women make more money than mothers.

"Mothers are 44 percent less likely to be hired than women without children, and they are paid $11,000 less, according to a study from Cornell University," says an ABC news article (which I found in one quick Google search). Why? Probably because women with children will be seen as splitting their time and attention, whereas women without children will be presumed to be more focused on the job. The assumption is, of course, bad for both: women without children are assumed to have no fulfilling life outside of work, and women with children are seen to be unable to prioritize or manage time. (Now, sure, women with children do have a whole lot of juggling to do--why don't we work on affordable daycare? Or let's battle assumptions that women (and not men) should do most of the staying home with sick kids, taking kids to doctors, and chaperoning field trips!)

So, we know that the woman who wrote this article is wrong in her facts, and just needs justification for why she "distrusts" women without children. Let's read on.

She says that many bosses see women without children as lacking "an essential humanity"... well fuck you. Oops, was that inhumane of me to say? OK. I don't want to have children. I also am not a huge fan of animals. Truth be told, I love kittens and puppies (though I've developed an allergy since going to college and now can't be around them much without careful attention and lots of hand washing, so it's usually easiest to avoid them all together), but I get really annoyed with them once they grow up. I find them very cute and cuddly, but once they don't fit in my palm anymore, they just aren't as fun. (See? I really shouldn't have children; I might hate them once they start walking!) But I don't believe this makes me inhumane. I'm sarcastic, and I have been told that I often say things in a tone that makes me come across as mean when I think I'm making a joke. But I'm also a good listener and I'm caring to the people that I love. It takes me a long time to really become close friends with someone, but once I do, you can tell me anything, I will tell you anything, and I'll do my best to be there when needed. I'm not the best friend anyone ever had, but I'm not the worst. I'm a human, with emotions and flaws, whether or not I have children.

She goes on to say:

"Nobody wishes to see a female soldier in combat with a six-week-old infant in one arm and a rifle in the other. Or a high-flier working 20-hour days while still breast-feeding. Or the mother of a small brood taking on any job of such erratic hours that she cannot promise them when or even if she'll be home. But most jobs aren't like that - and most children don't stay babies for long."

So, because I work in a job with pretty flexible hours, that is not intensely demanding most days of the year, I should have children? I love my job's flexible hours for these reasons:

1. I mean, who doesn't love flexible hours? 

2. Most times of the year, I can work my schedule around things like going to the gym, having a lunch with a friend or my boyfriend, going out of town, etc. As long we aren't busy or under deadline, as long as I know someone else will be at the office to grab the phone, my schedule doesn't have to be the same every day. 

3. Most of my job is done on my computer; so if one day, I'm getting afternoon sleepiness or just sick of being in the same place, I can say, "Hey, I'm going to finish this up at home; I need a break." I don't do this often at all, but I know it's an option if I truly need it. Yes, it's a privilege, and one I don't want to give up if I don't have to. 

So, yeah, my schedule (more so than many, at least) would allow for children. I mean, let's be honest, nobody really has all the time they need to raise children; but I probably do have more than the average woman. That does not mean, however, that I should feel obligated to have children. And I don't. 

This was, to me, the most insulting part of the article:

"It's not the mothers, for a start, who are going to turn up late and hungover after a night on the razz; they'll have been up, dressed and alert for hours, having cooked a family breakfast and delivered their children to school. On time."

Again, I will use myself as an example. Right now, I'm not a 100% full-time employee (yes, this attributes some to the flexible hours I was discussing, but not completely; just the other day, my boss told me he was going to run some errands, then finish working on the book at home; everyone in my office does this sometimes), so I don't work a full day every day. Usually I work about three "full-time" days a week and two "half-time" days. Yet, I still wake up about 7:00 every morning. Now, I know that many mothers out there wake up earlier than that, and I'm certainly not trying to compete or say I am awake just as long as they are. But I am pointing out that I am a person who gets up every morning, makes some sort of breakfast (sometimes it involves cooking, sometimes it involves pouring cereal into a bowl), makes coffee, gets on the computer to check e-mail and see what lies ahead of me for the day's work, exercises (some days), and more. My parents, when I was younger, did NOT get up to "cook a family breakfast" or to be "alert for hours." My sisters and I were constantly late to school and my mother late to work. I'm not saying this makes my mother a bad mother (she's pretty fucking awesome, actually); I'm just saying that some mothers sleep late, and some non-mothers don't. It's a personality thing, not an automatic "because I'm a parent" thing. And we all know that, even for mothers who are fantastic at time management and don't usually show up to work late, bosses tend to see mothers (at least before hiring them) as more likely to be late or miss days from work due to children. 

I, also, have only shown up to work hungover once or twice. I was not late, my work performance was not affected; I simply was a little bit miserable those days (a fact of which my co-workers were unaware). And are we really saying that no mothers ever show up to work hungover? I seriously doubt it.

She also writes,

"It's not the mothers, usually, who run the office bitch-fest.

They're not there to compete for the attentions of the male executives; they're there to get out of the house; they're there because they genuinely enjoy some adult company; and they're there because they have mouths to feed other than their own and shoes to buy for someone else's feet."

Screenshot from her article

Her general assumptions about women are so insulting. Women as office gossipers. Women as working for the purpose of finding a man. Women as making money in order to buy frivolous items (you know, because all women have/want Carrie Bradshaw-esque shoe collections and obsessions). 

I work because I have to. I enjoy my job, and I know that I want to continue working in publishing, though eventually at a feminist-geared publication/publishing house, but come on, at the end of the day, we all work because we have to get paid. If I didn't have to work, if I just had money raining down on me at all times, I would still "work"; I would read and write and blog and share new information with people and try to change a little (or a lot) of our society's misguided ideas, but no, I wouldn't choose a 9 to 5 office job in order to do that. And most of us wouldn't. I "genuinely enjoy some adult company," but I don't need my job to do that. I do need my job because I "have mouths to feed;" mine and my boyfriend's. (He contributes too, don't worry, but since we live together we depend on each other financially; I'm screwed if he doesn't come up with rent, and vice versa.) 

I just find this writer's superior attitude to be so condescending (and there's so much more that I haven't touched on). Mothers can do no wrong. Women without children are weird, unnatural, immature and irresponsible. She assumes that all parents are good parents and good workers, and that all non-parents are youthful partiers who care very little about their jobs. Really, the way she talks about non-mothers, you would think she's talking about "The Plastics" from Mean Girls. And maybe she is. 

But believe me, Carol Sarler, there are plenty of women out there who choose not to have children for their entire lives. They remain childless into their 40s, 50s, 60s, and on. And their lives can still be fulfilling, and meaningful, and responsibly led. I'm pretty sure Gloria Steinem would say she has had a fulfilling, meaningful life (one that is still going strong). Eudora Welty did pretty well. 

And, Carol, until you start telling me that you distrust men who are childless by choice, I just can't buy anything you write. 

Update: Injunction, Injunction...

Judge Jordan ruled today to extend the injunction, keeping the Jackson abortion clinic open for now. It's a small victory, but definitely a step in the right direction.

For more information, check out this article written by Emily Wagster Pettus, who was also live-tweeting during today's hearing. Also, check out this video from Rachel Maddow's show (skip to 6:45 to see the Mississippi portion).

Maddow points out something that I hadn't noticed before but is so important to this whole debate. While the legislators of Mississippi have not been shy about saying that this law was an attempt to stop abortion of Mississippi, they have also occasionally thrown out, "Oh yeah, it's for the health of Mississippi's women." They say that doctors need to have admitting privileges to a local hospital in case of abortion complications. Rachel Maddow, quoting a medical expert, points out that doctors would have to admit 10 or more patients in a year in order to get privileges, but "A typical abortion provider would rarely admit more than one patient a year for abortion complications, and in many years would have no complications requiring hospitalization." Oh, how crafty, Phil Bryant and company! You say that these doctors need to have admitting privileges for the safety of the women, yet you know that they won't be able to get those privileges because abortions are safe and so rarely have complications!!

Maddow also points out that there are 4 other states in the country with only one abortion clinic, so the final decision in Mississippi could very well set a precedent for banning abortion without touching Roe v. Wade. Hopefully, today's small victory of upholding the injunction temporarily will turn into a much larger victory of ruling this TRAP law unconstitutional.

You Have to Be a Beast

Thanks to a few exercise classes at the gym (yes, sort of dance aerobics stuff, don't judge me), I've recently become familiar with Nicki Minaj the musician. Now, thanks to a video circulating on the Internet. I've also become familiar with (and fallen in love with) Nicki Minaj the feminist. I don't know if she identifies that way, but listen to her discuss sexism in her industry and there's no doubt that she's a feminist.

I love this speech/rant from Nicki. I don't keep up with the tabloids and celebrity news, but clearly she has earned a reputation for being a bitch and/or difficult to work with, and I love how she discusses what that means.

The sad part about this video comes at the very end, when she says "Don't use this footage, please, it's just gonna make me look stupid." After all her discussion about being assertive, standing up for herself, and the double standards for women, she backs off and reverts to worrying about what people will think of her. And this is one of the hardest parts about being a woman and a feminist; even when you know you are right, even when you know you have every right to point out discrimination, you can't help but revert back to worrying about what people think. Because that's what women are taught to do: always consider what other people think of you and how you appear.

I found this video via Bitch Magazine, and, not surprisingly, they said their favorite part was when she discusses the word "bitch". My favorite part, however, is after that when she talks about how girls have to be good at what they do, but also sweet, yet also sexy. She says, very directly, "I can't be all those things at once. I'm a human being."

There you have it, straight from Nicki Minaj. Women can't be expected to be everything, and they should be respected for what and who they are, whether it fits into the feminine, submissive mold or not.