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.

Injunction, Injunction, What's Your Function?

Recently in Mississippi, a law was passed in order to shut down the state's only abortion clinic. Of course, abortion, while controversial, is still legal in the United States, so Mississippi legislators can't just decide to close it because they are uncomfortable with a woman's right to choose.

But of course, that's exactly what they've been trying to do.

The TRAP law (while the acronym makes sense on its own, it actually stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) requires doctors performing abortions to be OB-GYNs with admitting privileges to a local hospital. The Mississippi clinic is staffed by OB-GYNs, but they have been refused admitting privileges at all the hospitals in the required range. Because of this refusal, the clinic would have to close once the law goes into effect.

However, today, the day the law should have gone into effect, US District Judge Daniel P. Jordan issued a temporary injunction to keep that from happening. A lawsuit has been filed, calling the new law unconstitutional and medically unnecessary.

The best part about this is that the extreme Republicans who have been so proud of this new law that they have really shot themselves in the collective foot. If they had been able to come up with some sort of medical or health-inspection reason for the clinic to be shut down, then it would closed, over and done with. But Governor Phil Bryant and others strutted around, boasting of making Mississippi "abortion-free" and, I'm sure, hoping to win (and probably succeeding) conservative votes for this. And now these quotes and boasts have been brought into the case against the new law as evidence that the goal of the law was simply to shut down the clinic without any medical reasons.

If Mississippi's legislators were actually concerned about the health of their state's women, they wouldn't have bragged so arrogantly about shutting down the state's abortion clinic (of course, if they really cared about women's health, they wouldn't work to shut it down at all, but that's wishful thinking it seems...). Their overblown pride over shutting down the clinic could now end up being the very reason it stays open.

The fight over abortion in Mississippi (or the US) isn't over, but this current turn of events has me feeling optimistic for at least a few more days.

Really? Women Have It Better?

I arrived at work this morning to see my boss (a man) carrying boxes of books up the stairs to our office. I live in Mississippi. My office is at the top of a 26-step, outdoor staircase (with no elevator option). As a publishing company that ships out our own books, we are constantly having to bring heavy boxes of books from our warehouse up the stairs to our office. This means that the job of bringing books up is hard, tiring and sweaty (at 9 a.m. when he was doing this, the temperature was already creeping close to 80 degrees) work. I considered offering to grab a box and take it up, but considering that I was already carrying my laptop, that I was dressed in my work clothes (whereas my boss was dressed in dirty, get-sweaty-carrying-books clothes), and that I didn't really want to, I kept my mouth shut. And my boss didn't ask me to grab a box. Why didn't he ask me? Maybe for the same reasons: not to make me get sweaty in my clothes for the day or not to make me carry more weight along with the computer. But more likely, he didn't ask me to carry a heavy box of books up the stairs because I'm a woman.

I had a conversation with a friend recently who said that women are better off in this world. Now, I don't think he was being totally serious; I know he recognizes the institutional discrimination that women often face. But he was being serious about the ways in which he thinks women are better off, and he was using them as examples in a larger discussion about women, childcare, and staying home vs. working outside the home. These are the ways he said women are better off:

1. We are not usually expected to carry heavy things. Even when people recognize that we can and will, we are more likely to not be asked to do it unless we volunteer first.

2. Women can get out of work with a menstrual cramps excuse.

3. Men don't have the option of paternity leave.

I can't remember if he had more, but we'll deal with these for now.

1. It's true and unfair, and let's be honest: I'm pretty much fine with it. I don't like carrying heavy things (especially in Mississippi heat). Honestly, I'm not a big fan of tons of physical activity outside of my gym workouts (those take enough mental motivation, thank you very much). I recognize that the burden of carrying heavy things falls to the men around me, but I also recognize that the men around me are stronger than me. It doesn't mean that all men are stronger than all women; but men and women do have strength in different parts of their body, and I personally have very little strength anywhere. Because I recognize that it's unfair, I'll try to volunteer or ask if my help is needed, but at the first sign of an out ("Oh no I've got it."), I'll take it and not complain. Sorry guys. If you do want my help, ask; if not, awesome.

2. I hate this reasoning. I've only worked in one office setting, and while I maybe could go to my boss saying "I'm really having terrible cramps today, I need to head out/work from home today," I never would. There is no way I'm going to talk to my boss about my cramps, and I would feel way too guilty to use that as a fake excuse when I'm not actually having cramps. If I were having cramps that were truly keeping me from concentrating at work, I would simply ask to head home because of not feeling well. And feeling sick is an excuse anyone can use. And while some women may use the cramps excuse, that doesn't automatically mean their boss will give in to it, just like saying you aren't feeling well isn't a guaranteed Free Trip Home Card. Some bosses may let you go, some may tell you to suck it up, but they are going to do that for everyone.

3. Also true and unfair, and let's be honest: It needs to be fixed. Parental leave in the US needs an overhaul. We need paid maternity and paternity leave for all new parents. Society also needs to get with the picture. I know that even in places where paternity leave is offered, men are often looked down upon by their peers if they actually take it. Too often, it's seen as something that their wives should be doing (assuming, of course, that they have wives, another problem). And taking leave in general is often considered a career mistake, for both men and women. Women without children get paid more than women with children. And when someone drops out of the workforce for a year or more, it's often seen as setting them back, putting them behind their peers who have stayed in the workforce.

There are often other reasons that men will use to say that women are better off: better and multiple orgasms (I'm also totally fine with this one), more clothing options, a society more accepting of fluid sexuality for women than for men, etc. I found this reason online:

No one can tell by looking at a woman’s pretty face, that she might actually be feeling horrible inside. That is the beauty of being a woman. She can totally be feeling under the weather and yet have the ability to make herself look like a pretty blossom. Whereas when the men are feeling down, they make sure the message is conveyed well and proper by the looks on their faces.

(We'll just ignore the condescending "woman's pretty face" comment, and we'll ignore the fact that what they are calling "the beauty of being a woman" is actually the burden of being socialized as a woman and being taught to stay quiet, obedient and under control, and that men "make sure the message is conveyed" because they've been taught that they can and should. I could start a whole new post on this comment alone, but we're gonna leave it for now.) 

These reasons for women being better off than men really bother me, though, because they distract from the larger conversation. A guy bringing up these small reasons usually says to me that they are not taking the conversation with me seriously (because who can really equate "not having to carry heavy things" with "consistently getting paid less for equal work") or that they are totally unaware of the true inequalities that women face and are not interested in hearing about them. When I'm interrupted in a conversation about inequality with a comment or a joke about multiple orgasms, I'm being silenced. I'm being told, by way of putting a joke ahead of what I'm trying to say, that I need to lighten up, that things aren't that bad, that women and men are just trading off different privileges. I would still gladly trade many of these for a true lack of discrimination in the workplace, for being paid the same salary/wage as a man in an equal position, and for the constant possibility of rape and sexual violence to be (almost completely) eliminated. I would trade the option of choosing between a skirt and pants without being seen as a cross-dresser for the ability to walk into a job interview and know that my gender is not going to influence how I am judged as a legitimate job candidate. 

Any guys want to trade places with me for a day? Let's do it, and see if you think women are truly better off than men.

Toilet Seats: Up or Down?

Have you seen this? I saw it on a friend's Facebook wall.

Now, if you read all of these, plenty of them are based on lame gender stereotypes. In the second column, for example, there is the comment about colors and how subtle shade differences are lost on men. Guess what? They are lost on me too, and I have a vagina. Also, I get my oil changed exactly when it needs to be changed. Every time. And for my boyfriend, a living, breathing male, Saturday=books or Saturday=sleep (actually these days Saturday=work but that's beside the point), but Saturday=NO Sports.

However, I do really enjoy and appreciate the first rule (henceforth known as The Toilet Seat Rule). I myself have done some complaining over the years, that might have sounded something like this: "Why can't you put the toilet seat back down after you use it?" "If you do that, I'm gonna fall in!" "It's not that hard to put it back down."

But I also remember one moment of gender-equality consideration on my part. I was hanging out at a guy friend's apartment, and I asked to use the bathroom before we left. Since he lived alone, and he was (and still is) a male, I chose to put the toilet seat back up when I was done. I'd never done that before (or since, I don't think...), but for whatever reason, in that moment I was very aware that I was in a guy's apartment, and that guys usually want the toilet seat up. So I put it back up. When I told my sister that I had done this, she laughed at me as if I were so silly. But if we expect them to put it back down in our bathrooms, why shouldn't we put it back up in theirs?

Let's be honest ladies. For most of us (at least those reading this), it's been a long time since we were small enough to truly fall into the toilet. I can only remember one occurrence of walking into the bathroom and sitting down without realizing the seat was up, and I caught myself before coming anywhere close to bare bottom meeting toilet water. Yes, I would say the toilet looks better with the seat down, and usually looks cleaner, and that is the image that I personally would prefer for visitors to my bathroom to see, but that is how I feel about my own home.

Now, I definitely am not endorsing the stereotypes in most of these rules. The "Crying is blackmail" and "Yes and no are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question" are just reworded versions of "Men don't have emotions. We don't understand women and their crazy emotions. Stop crying--we're not allowed to, and seeing you do it freaks us out!" In fact, 2/3 of these rules are based solely on "Women talk too much, feel too much and buy too much" and "Men are superior and therefore above those silly words, feelings and consumer products."

But I do find the toilet seat rule to be funny and to ring true. I feel like I learned to complain about the toilet seat more from movies and TV than anywhere else. I've been wondering where this started. Maybe it started when work moved out of the home and women became primary homemakers; they had control over the home and how it looked, and therefore the home was subject to their demands and needs. But however it started, I think it's interesting how it has persisted, and even come to symbolize, in a way, the little, frivolous arguments of a married (heterosexual) couple.


And the rule gets one more thing right: I've never heard men complain about having to put it back down.

Oxford Educated or Oxford Ignorant?

Today, the school board of my former school district, Oxford, will be voting on which type of sex education policy to adopt. They can choose between "abstinence-only" or "abstinence-plus" (comprehensive) courses. What will Oxford, Miss., choose? I'm not sure.

Growing up in Mississippi, I have learned to handle contradictions (though not always happily or easily). The personhood amendment was brought to Mississippi by Personhood USA precisely because we are considered to be the most conservative state, and they felt sure it would pass. Yet, we voted it down last November by about 14 points. But, we still voted for Phil Bryant as governor, who was directly involved with the personhood movement. (I don't understand it either.) We have the highest teen pregnancy rate, highest infant mortality rate, and our educational attainment rates are some of the lowest in the country, yet our politicians are mostly anti-abortion and anti-sex education.

So what do these contradictions mean for sex-education policies in our schools? Well, it's a little unclear. The Lafayette County School District (the county of which Oxford is the seat) has already adopted an abstinence-only education policy. But according to this article, "Mississippi parents are overwhelmingly in favor of age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education." One Oxford parent points out that those opposed to comprehensive sex education are "a minority of parents" who are "very passionate about their beliefs and are active in influencing their local school boards." So it seems very plausible that this minority could force their beliefs into policy, whether or not most of Oxford's parents actually agree with them.

So, it seems to me that all Oxford parents need to get their voices heard. I just e-mailed members of the school board about the vote. I don't know how much weight my opinion will hold, since I am not a parent of any Oxford students, but I did it anyway. If you want to write to school board members, go to the School Board website with names and e-mail addresses provided. If we want Mississippi's teen pregnancy rate to fall, we have to start educating Mississippians. It starts here.

*This post is cross-posted at Represent!

Finally! Obama's Support of Gay Marriage

Today the Internet is buzzing about Obama coming out (no pun intended) in support of gay marriage. In an interview with ABC (the full interview has not actually aired but this clip has been released), Obama talks about the "evolution" of his views on gay marriage.

Now, we all know why he is announcing this today. This week, Joe Biden said publicly that he was "absolutely comfortable" with gay marriage, an announcement that Obama staffers began trying to correct, putting it more in line with Obama's support-of-equality-falling-just-short-of-marriage-to-toe-the-political-line platform. The Chicago Tribune writes,

While the White House claimed the remarks were essentially a restatement of the president’s position, it was obvious they were everything the president's stance was not: open and clear.

After Joe Biden's statements were praised, and the Obama campaign's obvious efforts to dial them back seemed to prove that the President was still unwilling to take the next step in declaring support for America's LGBT activists and communities, there was really only one thing he could do: go ahead and support marriage equality already. So he did.

And I'm glad he did. I know it came from political pressure, but so what? How many people do you think there are that really backed his support-of-equality-falling-just-short-of-marriage-to-toe-the-political-line platform who are suddenly freaking out and running to Mitt Romney's open arms? I'm guessing not very many. And I'm disappointed that it took him this long to make this declaration, since his toeing of the line was such a lame, copout way of handling a divisive issue in our country.

So the question is, does this change anything? Not really; not yet. As I said, I'm pretty sure that no one thought Obama would ever back up and go the other way on gay marriage. He repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell; he's often discussed the importance of civil unions and equal rights in all aspects of life for homosexual, bisexual and transgender individuals and couples. No one is surprised by his full-support statement (just surprised it took us this long to get here). But will he take this support he's declaring and use it to push legislation in favor of marriage equality? I don't know. But I hope so. Because if he doesn't, he's just making a meaningless declaration...much like Michael Scott on The Office:

So, President Obama, please don't just declare your support of marriage equality.

Do all you can to make it happen.