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?