The Right to Life: Why I'm Against Personhood in All Forms

Since Mississippi voters voted down the personhood amendment in November, politicians have decided on a second way to get this anti-woman legislation passed: the MS Legislature. Completely ignoring the opinion of the voters, two bills will most likely be introduced: one dealing with "humane treatment of human embryos" and one proposing to define "life at conception." From what I've been reading and hearing, these bills will be revamped versions of personhood, supposedly with adjustments made for the issues voters brought up (ectopic pregnancy treatment, contraception, IVF, etc.). And it's possible that these adjustments could sway some of those "I'm anti-abortion but this bill goes too far" people. And it was very easy, because the proposed personhood amendment was so vague, to keep the arguments in the "It just goes too far" realm (because, of course, it did). But I would like to point out why I'm against these measures no matter what.

I am pro choice.

I believe that legal abortions should stay legal. I believe that a teen rape survivor should be allowed to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I believe that an incest survivor should be allowed to make her own decision when finding herself pregnant in horrifying circumstances.

I also believe that a young woman in a sexual relationship should be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. I believe that a woman who doesn't want to have kids shouldn't be forced into parenthood, a lifetime commitment, because the condom broke, or she missed a pill, or the very determined sperm just got through anyway.  I believe that a woman who is not ready for children (financially, emotionally, physically) should be able to plan her life accordingly (and 66% of women who have abortions plan to have children later in life, when they are prepared). I believe that a woman who has children already, and cannot afford another, can make her own decision about what kind of family she can or cannot handle.

Now, the first step to all of the above circumstances (except for the rape and incest circumstances) is contraception. And, as I've written before, comprehensive sexual education and access to contraception and healthcare is a big part of this. But we all know that contraception can fail. In fact, according to the statistics of this site, half of all women getting abortions were using contraception at the time they got pregnant (and this site confirms this, putting the number at 54%). So even if these new bills don't affect birth control, they will still affect women's abilities to make their own decisions about their lives.

But let's look at some other statistics. The anti-abortion argument that bugs me the most is "women shouldn't be using abortion as just another form of birth control." This bothers me because it paints all women having abortions (and pro-choice supporters) as people indifferent to the lives of children. It paints them as uncaring, unfeeling killers.

The truth is, women are not using abortion as another form of birth control. As already mentioned, it is often a last resort when other contraception has failed. Also,
"If abortion were used as a primary method of birth control, a typical woman would have at least two or three pregnancies per year - 30 or more during her lifetime. In fact, most women who have abortions have had no previous abortions (52%) or only one previous abortion (26%). Considering that most women are fertile for over 30 years, and that birth control is not perfect, the likelihood of having one or two unintended pregnancies is very high." (from Abortion Facts: Women Who Have Abortions)


No matter what else the bills do or do not address, I am still against them, because I believe that a woman's right to choose is essential to a woman's independence. If she can plan when to have children and when not to, if she can decide when to use contraception and when not to, then she can fully live her life. Women often make choices because they have unexpectedly become pregnant, or even because they fear they might become pregnant. And I'm not saying that fear will ever go away; it's something all women have to deal with at some point. But with the right to make decisions about her own body and her own life, women are freer to live, and plan, and enjoy their lives as they choose and desire.

That's the right I'm fighting for. The right to life.

Xtreme Politics: Republicans and the War on Women

The campaigns to find the Republican presidential candidate (or, as I like to refer to them, the Big Freak Show) have me a bit baffled. I realize that many Republicans have been waging a war on women, attacking reproductive health rights, health care, and more, but I'm suddenly very aware of how extreme all of these candidates' ideas really are. Look at the first paragraph of this article from Salon:

Here is an actual Rick Santorum quote: “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Also according to Salon, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain all signed the Personhood Pledge, which would ban all abortions as well as potentially restricting or banning many forms of birth control and IVF. (Mitt Romney said he would support this, even though he clearly didn't understand how birth control could be affected by it.) Yet, according to statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, "Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15-44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method," and "Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15-44 are currently using a method." 

So even though a majority of women are using birth control, the majority of Republican candidates are in favor of restricting access to it, or banning it all together. Bachmann, Paul, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney all also supported stripping all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, most of which goes to family planning and providing contraception, not abortion. And I realize that for many people abortion is the argument, but come on! We know, and the candidates know, that their actions and the bills they support are much more far-reaching than that. 

It breaks my heart that people get so caught up on something like abortion that they refuse to see the bigger picture. Think about my home state, Mississippi. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate; banning abortions will only increase this. Banning contraception will absolutely increase this. And, I have to go back to the slogan from the Personhood fight: "Republicans only care about you if you're a fetus." This may not apply to all Republicans, but it certainly seems to apply to all of the major candidates this year. Increasing health care for women and children? Of course not! They don't plan to take care of these children once they are living in independent bodies! They just want to keep women from having complete control over when, how, and if they have children. 

The personhood fight is not over. The war on women is not over. We have to stand up against these extreme candidates. It's interesting (read: sad) to me that Phil Bryant, a man who can compare over half of his state's voters to Nazis and Satan, a man who was in fact the co-chair of the Yes on 26 Campaign, can be elected governor in the same moments that personhood is soundly defeated. Now, I don't think that elections should be determined by one issue, or candidate's should be supported or opposed based on one issue. However, I do think that the war on women is an exception of sorts. For one thing, the war on women encompasses more than just a stance on personhood; it's a stance on healthcare, reproductive rights, insurance plans, life-saving treatments for pregnant women, and much more. 

But also, even if we lump all of this into one category, one "issue," it could (and will) decide my votes. These issues are too important and too far-reaching to ignore. We can not elect officials who refuse to stand up for women and allow them equal rights and equal control over their lives. We should not be voting down personhood while electing its most vocal supporter. 

Republicans like Phil Bryant and those running around in the Big Freak Show have taken a strong stance against women. 

Now, we need to take a strong stance against their extreme views that serve no one's best interests but their own. 

The M-Word

Recently, I was talking to a friend about legalizing gay marriage and she said something that absolutely blew my mind. "Marriage should only be something that churches grant. All couples should legally get civil unions."

Now that may sound revolutionary, because in a way it is. It changes the entire way we think about what marriage is. But, going back to the basics, marriage is a sacrament granted by the (Christian) church. It existed as a holy sacrament before it existed as a legal contract. If the word marriage had never entered into the legal realm, the gay marriage argument would be totally different (or wouldn't exist) today. After all, about eleven states recognize civil unions between same-sex couples already. If marriage as a religious institution had been historically kept separate from the legal institution, I think the problem with same-sex unions would be much smaller today. Most people who actively oppose same-sex marriage do so on the basis of religion, with the argument that "Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman." But if we acknowledged marriage as purely a religious choice and nothing more, then this argument wouldn't stand, because you could choose marriage or not, and you could find a church that would perform your marriage. Same-sex couples wanting marriage could find an accepting church and priest that would perform their marriage (there are plenty out there); on the other hand, for any couples for whom religion is not important, the civil union side would provide all the legal rights and would simply exist outside of the church's recognition.

Would this solve all discrimination against homo-, bi- and transsexuals? Of course not. But it would go a long way toward true equality, in which all couples looking to start lives together would have the same life-joining choices before them.

Plus, this is very idealistic. There's no way to change the language that has existed in our country and in our constitutions for years upon years. And there's no easy way to change the cultural perception of what marriage is or is not, because it's based upon our cultural history that can't be erased.

I do think, however, that discussing our marriage equality issues in these terms can provide a new way of thinking about them. If we want true marriage equality in this country, it won't be just a matter of allowing marriage for same-sex couples. It will have to be by changing our perception of marriage and reevaluating how it works or doesn't work for all couples.

Why Princesses? Why Not?

I just read an article of Naomi Wolf's that I found online at the New York Times a couple of days ago. The title is "Mommy, I Want To Be a Princess," and, I'm not going to lie, I was prepared to hate it. Skimming the article, it seemed like she was defending the girlie-girl princess culture that so many young girls are obsessed with these days (for more on that, check out Cinderella Ate My Daughter by Peggy Orenstein). Plus, I must be honest, I think part of my preparation to hate this essay was because I was momentarily confusing Naomi Wolf with Katie Roiphe (even I can't keep track of all the feminists I like or dislike all the time!). But still, I have a lot of problems with the princess culture of today, and I was not very interested in reading a defense of that.

However, the article doesn't totally defend princess culture. For one, she is talking more about young girls' fascination with real princesses (such as Kate Middleton and Princess Di) than she is about the obsession with Disney princesses. She talks about how modern-day princesses do do a lot of work, and she praises how these women in particular have brought together the classes of Britain, showing that a princess doesn't have to be snobby and unattainable.

But she does also touch on the Disney princess culture, and that's where she lost me. She says that "they are busy being the heroines of their own lives." Now, there are some Disney princess who just completely rock. Mulan? Yes! She fights in a war, keeps her identity concealed, and saves China. Awesome. And Anastasia kills Rasputin, which we know is really really hard to do. But then she says that Cinderella's glass slipper "fits because she is nice to little creatures." I'm just not buying it. The shoe was made (created, magicked, choose your verb) for her; of course it fits! And what about the princesses that Wolf fails to mention? Let's recap*:

Ariel: her entire plotline centers around her pining for a man she has never spoken to, and she literally gives away her voice in order to win him over (check out this funny video about her)
Snow White: cleans up after everyone and loves it all the time, and is just really, really pretty.
Belle: she's a little more complicated; after all, she reads and stands her own against a scary man (beast), but she could also be seen as being in an abusive relationship in the hopes of making a change (as discussed in this hilarious video).
Sleeping Beauty: Do I even need to say anything? It's in her name.
Jasmine: Also a little complicated. After all, I applaud her desire to get out of the castle walls and experience adventure, but that desire seems to come more out of boredom from a pampered life. After all, she seems pretty content to be back in the castle after she's gone out and found a husband.
**One princess who is a little more interesting is Pocahontas, but she's usually left out of the "Disney Princess" category; whether she doesn't count because she's Native American, or because she's not ever wearing a frilly dress, I'm not sure.

I didn't hate Wolf's article as I expected to. But I still think her defense of princess culture and obsession is a little shallow. After all, little girls aren't often exploring the charitable acts and philanthropy of today's modern princesses. They are looking at women (powerful women, yes) with pretty dresses and fairy-tale weddings, because that is what their TVs and computers are telling them to look at. Even when the princesses are doing good deeds and real work, if our media is blinding young girls with shiny dresses, money and "perfect" weddings, what are they going to see and admire at the end of the day?


*I would like to say that while I understand all the problems with many of the Disney princesses and their stories, I still love most of the movies. What can I say? I grew up with red hair, and when I went swimming I would go underwater to try to make my hair flow around my head like Ariel's did. Those movies are a part of my childhood, and I just can't turn my back on them completely. 

Her Obligation, His Choice: Raising the Kids

"It doesn't make sense that only women are saying 'How can I combine career and family?'"

I heard Gloria Steinem say this in an interview today. First of all, I would love for her to be the next President. Just saying. She's awesome.

But anyway, this is such a great statement. Today we still don't think of men as responsible for childcare. Yes, there are more men choosing to stay home with the kids, but pay attention to the key word: choosing. For many women, staying home is not a choice. It's a practicality and an assumption; daycare is too expensive, so someone has to stay home, and many families assume that someone will be the mother.

Recently, having a conversation with a soon-to-married friend of mine, he was joking around about his future wife staying home with the kids. I asked him, "Well why don't you take the time off and stay with the kids?" He said "Done! That would be awesome!" He made it sound like a vacation, something exciting. And yes, many people love, love, love, staying home to raise the kids, and I'm not knocking it, but no one who has done it would say it is easy. It is difficult, exhausting, all-day unpaid work. And while men may see this (before they do it) as a vacation from work, a year off, a choice they can make or not, too many women deal with it as work, as an obligation, as a choice they didn't get to make.

My mom often talks about what it was like for her when she and my dad were still married. He helped with us a lot; she often had friends mention how impressed they were with his involvement. But he always expected to be thanked. This shows that he fell into the same trap of thinking that raising the kids was just women's work. She was expected to do it; if he deigned to do it, he should be rewarded. Her obligation, his choice.

I don't mean to say that this makes my dad a bad father or anything like that. This is just a personal example of how these cultural assumptions really affect our personal lives. We have to stop seeing stay-at-home dads as these wonderful, self-sacrificing people who are giving up on a (masculine) career to be a (feminine) stay-at-home parent. Or rather, we should start seeing all stay-at-home moms as the wonderful, self-sacrificing people who are giving up on a career to do very real work at home with their children. All stay-at-home parents are sacrificing a portion of their lives for their children, and they all deserve equal credit. 

Penises don't make men better parents; they shouldn't get them more praise either.

The. Most. Important. Day: "It's My Day!" Part Two

 In August, I wrote a post about my problems with the cultural traditions surrounding the modern wedding, and the traditions of it being "the bride's day" and all that. I discussed the problem with all the focus on one person (the bride) instead of on the partnership of two people.

Last night, I had a bit of a revelation about this. Now, I don't remember exactly how my train of thought got there; I was out at the bar with some friends, one of whom is engaged and was talking about the planning of his wedding. I was thinking, as I so often do, about my plan to skip the whole wedding tradition and just go to city hall with whomever I choose to marry, and throw a big party later for all of our friends. And a thought crossed through my mind (I admit, I had been drinking wine, so the exact thought escapes me) that went something like this: Do I really want the most important day of my life to happen in city hall with just a few witnesses?


That's when I got it. The attitude of "It's My Day," the thinking of a woman needing one day to feel like a princess, to feel like the most important woman in the room, all stems back to the idea that for women, your wedding is supposed to be The. Most. Important. Day. Of. Your. Life. This idea is ingrained into us girls and women by our culture and the people around us.

Well, pardon me, but fuck that! I have had, and will have, a lot of important days in my life. Graduating college? Yeah. Getting promoted from intern to managing editor? Awesome! Night I met my current boyfriend? Pretty good, too.

Of course, a lot of this stems back to a time when a wedding was the most important day of a woman's life, because it meant financial security and status. And while we all love to say we've moved on, these assumptions and beliefs still follow us around. How many movies have we seen where the woman who is "always a bridesmaid but never a bride" is sad and lonely? She may have a great job, she may have great friends and a social life, she may be (probably is) super hot (Hollywood-standards hot, of course) but she is not married, so she must be incomplete and inferior. (This is one thing I liked in the movie Bridesmaids; sure, Annie's lack of a relationship is part of her sadness, but most of it stems from her failings in her career; she's not trying to get married, she's just trying to get her life together.)

And, again, the focus on it being the most important day for a woman, and for a relationship, takes the focus away from the partnership. Recently, my boyfriend pointed out that he thinks the way wedding anniversaries are counted is weird. "Why do they start over at the wedding? Does the relationship before the wedding, the months and years together before that one day, not count anymore?" It's an interesting thought. I do get the wedding anniversary thing; it's the date that you officially started a life together, and made that commitment to stay together and move forward as a pair. But it's interesting to think about, especially when so many relationships blur those lines these days. Some people talk about getting married way before they are officially engaged. Some live together for years before walking down the aisle. Some have children before getting married. The traditional way of counting the "years together" may not fit many relationships anymore. And the wedding may or may not be, or feel like, the most important milestone anymore. I can certainly imagine that after living with someone for months or years, the wedding/marriage may feel more like tying up loose ends and bringing everything together than embarking on a huge new step.

So with all this cultural change and blurring of the lines toward commitment, why is there still such a focus on the bride's day as the biggest day of her life? Is it because we haven't caught up to the changes in women's lives? Is it because the larger culture refuses to accept that some women have more important plans and milestones in their lives than marriage?

What do you think?

Practice Makes...Pathetic?

"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.