GOP: FYI

Dear GOP:
My period started today. Thought you'd like to know, since these things seem to be crucial to the nation's economic recovery, and, goes without saying, national security.

I'm sorry I didn't take a photo of the globs of blood and tissue that fell into the toilet bowl just now when I went to pee (and discovered I was bleeding). I was a little thrown off by it, since my cycle seems to have gone from being 30-32 days long, before my last pregnancy, to 26 days long. Woops!

Also, I was a little frazzled because someone was ringing the doorbell, and I'm the only one home at the moment -- well, my 17-month-old is also here, but he's napping, and I didn't want the insistently-ringing doorbell to wake him! I'm also at my mom's house, and the only menstrual supplies I could find were thong pantiliners. Which, had you seen what the toilet bowl looked like after a half a minute of my sitting on it, were NOT going to cut it...

Anyway, just wanted to keep you abreast of the activities of my uterus!

Love,
Criss.

Tweet

"Amurrica" was founded on...

Yesterday I was at a red light behind a truck proudly displaying a bumper sticker that read:

America was founded on 

IN GOD WE TRUST.

Um, NO. It wasn't, you ignorant cow.

You know what "America" -- the United States of, to which I assume your ignorant sticker is referring, not the continent of America (though your claim would be closer to accurate if you were referring to the continent of America, you know, with the whole "God, gold, and glory" thing... but I am giving you way too much credit, aren't I?) -- was actually founded on?

Well, there was that whole, "We don't want the King to force us to join his church and follow his religion" thing, for one. And then there was that whole "Taxation without representation" thing.

Hmm... speaking of passing laws that affect a specific group of people without letting that specific group of people have a say in the matter...

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying, about getting back to the values this country was founded on?

Tweet

"Where your money is, there your heart will be also." Matthew 6:21

Hungerfast.org

"American Family Values" At Work: Working Breastfeeding Moms Don't Need Breast Pumps

There are not enough cuss words in the English language for me to express my opinion on this. Go read the article, Jodi does a much better job of discussing this rationally than I could:

IRS Fears Women May "Abuse" Tax Credits for Breastfeeding Supplies | RHRealityCheck.org

Freddy and I were planning on using his flex spending health care account thingie money to buy a breast pump, especially since he needs to spend the money by the end of the year and doesn't have anything else to spend it on. But I guess that's just trying to ABUSE THE SYSTEM!!!

Maybe I should just quit my job so I can feed my child as God and nature intended -- with breastmilk, not some chemical substitute. Of course, that would mean Freddy and I would have to go on some sort of government assistance program. That's a much better option, right, IRS?

Gotta love American Family Values: YOU MUST CARRY THAT PREGNANCY TO TERM!!! THAT LIFE IS SACRED!!

Until it comes out of the womb (i.e., becoming an ACTUAL life). Then, we'll screw you any way we possibly can...

Stolen Words Wednesday: Christine Todd Whitman

Today I attended Planned Parenthood of North Texas's Annual Luncheon. The keynote speaker was Christine Todd Whitman, former New Jersey Governor (first female governor in NJ) and co-chair of the Republican Leadership Council, among other things. These are quotes I scribbled during her speech. (These are all her words; the stuff in quotations marks is word-for-word, the non-quoted text is my paraphrasing because I didn't get the exact words and I don't want to misquote her.)

On people protesting Roe v. Wade 37 years after the Supreme Court's decision: "It's as if people were still protesting Brown v. Board of Education in 1991."

"I am a pro-choice Republican. Contrary to what some people may say, we are not an endangered species!"

"[As Governor of NJ, was appointing women to different positions; people were saying] I was appointing 'so many women' -- something I had never heard when my male counterparts were appointing 'so many men'!"

"We need to be much more intentional in electing and appointing women to political office."

"Women do bring a different perspective to the table... We set a different tone." The atmosphere in her office/in her cabinets was one of collaboration; people were not fighting to pin the blame when something went wrong or to claim the credit when something went well, which happened often in male-dominated offices.

"Women have something unique to offer in politics."

[Talking about her daughter running for office... sorry, didn't get all the details] "As women we hold other women to a higher standard than we do their male counterparts." Her daughter had experience in politics, and children. She was asked, "Who's going to take care of the children?" and was told she didn't have enough experience. The man she was running against had been a substitute teacher before being elected.

"I'd never say support a woman just because she is a woman [but if two candidates are equal in their issues/stands] then yes, it's okay to choose the woman because she is a woman." We need a variety of opinions, women, people of color, etc.

Quoted Maureen Reagan: "Women will have reached equality when we can elect women who are as unqualified as some of the men we elect."

Spoke of the Terry Schiavo case: in four days, due to calls and letters to Congress, legislators wrote legislation and Bush returned from a vacation early to sign it. The next day polls showed 70-80% of the USians said the government had no business getting involved in that case. This means that 20-30% of the people were the ones who called and wrote their legislators to act on this. Congress got involved and took action in FOUR DAYS because of that small percentage being active and vocal. Be that active and vocal population -- never underestimate its power.

Stolen Words Wednesday: Sean James and Al Joyner Respond to the Tebow Super Bowl Ad

A bad day to be a Texan...

Today was not good. It's like all the bad news came out all at once today, and aimed its missiles at Texas.

It actually started last night (but I wasn't fully online last night, so I'm calling it "very early this morning"), when Marcy posted a link to this blog. Go read it -- see it with your own eyes -- then come back.

Yes, you read that correctly.

The Texas State Board of Education has banned -- BANNED -- a children's book. A BOARD BOOK. You know what they call them "board books"? Because they're made out of cardboard, instead of paper. Because the target audience is too young for paper. The necessary motor skills to turn pages have not yet developed in children of that age.

BUT THE BOOK IS MARXIST!!

Bill Martin, Jr. wrote children's books. He wrote BROWN BEAR, BROWN BEAR, WHAT DO YOU SEE. He died in 2004.

Bill Martin wrote some Marxist book. In 2008.

Obviously, this is an elaborate communist conspiracy to indoctrinate our children, and the Texas State Board of Education is the only entity smart and brave enough to see it and stand up against it.

Need more proof this is "socialist indoctrination"? See for yourself:

Exactly.

Oh, but that's not all of it.

Later on, via Twitter (how I get all my news, for serious) I discovered Props 4 and 5 (scroll to the bottom of page 4): [emphasis mine]

Prop 4: "The use of the word 'God', prayers, and the Ten Commandments should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as be permitted on government buildings and property."

Prop 5: "The Texas Legislature should enact legislation requiring a sonogram be performed and shown to each mother about to undergo a medically unnecessary, elective abortion."

Need I say more?

I thought this was a free country, with separation of church and state. Isn't that what our Founding Fathers wanted?

I also thought doctors were the ones who should deem what is and is not "medically necessary" or "medically unnecessary." So if I request an elective tonsillectomy, do I have to watch a video of the procedure before the doctor will allow me to go into the OR?

This is just too insulting for words. I can't give it any.

But you know what takes the cake? This.

I can't comment on that last one. I really can't. The only thing that comes to mind is cuss words, and I try not to use those out loud (or typing). I can't believe I live in a state that has such a f*cked up legal system where something like that could even potentially happen.

The first two links are annoying, but, sadly, predictable. And, in the grand scheme of things, mostly harmless (those propositions are NOT going to pass, are they?) But this last one?

Pass real health care reform, not another abortion ban

Women's Day of Action for Health Care Reform: The Choice Movement and [Trans] Women's Health

The choice movement is not about babies or fetuses. It's about women* and their bodies.

It's about a woman's right to medication and medical care.

For the majority of women, meaning hetero cis women, "medication" translates into birth control and "medical care" translates into pregnancy care: how to have a healthy one, how to terminate one if needed, and how to avoid one in the first place.

When we talk about "women's health" we are, sadly, talking about hetero cis women, and we usually end up talking about birth control and pregnancy, even though hetero cis women do have other medical needs, not related to their reproductive organs.

Now here's the newsflash: not all women are hetero cis women. And guess what? They have medical needs too.

I am pro-choice because I have a right to tell my body what to do, not the other way around. I have a right to use birth control to make my periods regular, to reduce my cramps and other PMS symptoms, and to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

Now, for me personally, I'm lucky that my periods are pretty regular, and I don't really suffer from cramps. (I did have that one issue with the unwanted pregnancy, though.)

For me personally, I'm also lucky that what's between my legs (i.e., my sex) matches what's between my ears (i.e., my gender). That's another medical need I personally do not have. But millions of trans people do.

Just as I have a right to tell my body what to do and what not to do (by using birth control to regulate my periods or keep me from getting pregnant), a trans woman has the same right to control her body and tell it what to do and not do. And, if anything, I'd say a trans woman's needs trump my own; if worse came to worst I could control my body by not having sex or trusting the rhythm method. But a trans woman doesn't have another choice.

Disclaimer: I am new at this. I am probably going to screw up language and I know I am talking with little knowledge of trans medical needs and care. If I do screw up, please let me know, and I will correct myself.

A trans woman's body tries to act like a man's body. It tries to grow hair on her face and have a deep voice and not grow breasts or have the proper curves. Her body betrays her. The only way she can control this is with medication and/or(?) hormone therapy. She needs this medication just as much as, if not more than, I need birth control.

When we talk about women's rights and women's basic health care we need to make sure we also talk about trans women's rights and trans women's basic health care.

They may not need access to birth control, but they need access to hormone therapy (and/or other medical treatment of which I'm ignorant) if they choose to do that.

Then there's the day-to-day medical care. For me, it's things like my yearly well-woman exam, breast exams, so on and so forth. And those other things that come up randomly, like yeast infections, UTIs, etc. When any of those things comes up, I have the right and the ability to go to a doctor to get the care I need to fix the problem. Even if I don't have health insurance to help me pay for it, I know I can go to a clinic, such as Planned Parenthood, and get the care I need.

A trans woman also has the right to this, but at the moment, she does not have the ability to go to a doctor or a clinic to get the medical care she needs. Mainly her medical needs don't "match," according to cis standards, with her gender.

It's been decades now since we cis women have had to resort to the coathanger in a back alley. But for trans people, a back alley butcher with homemade tools is the only medical care they have access to. Part of the reason, I'm sure, is that insurance companies don't approve claims for Pap smears for men, or testicular cancer screenings for women. Part of the reason is doctors' offices don't know how to file paperwork for someone who was born a "man" but is now a woman. (This is a damn stupid reason, but it happens, and it's a barrier to medical care.) Part of the reason is probably that your average doctor or even your average OB/GYN doesn't know how to treat a trans person's needs.

Cis women have a specialist they can go to who knows all the details of their bodies. Why can't trans people have a specialist, a trans doctor, who specializes in treating their medical needs?

Do they even teach this stuff in medical school? I know a while back we pro-choice feminists got all up in arms about an anti-choice bill that wanted to remove the "abortion" pages from medical textbooks. Do those textbooks have any "trans" pages in them to begin with? Is this part of a med student's training? My very uninformed guess is NO.

I know it's easy for us cis women to say we're not qualified to speak up on trans issues because we don't know enough about it. We don't know what their needs are, we don't know what it's like to go through a gender transition. If we don't know what their needs are, how can we campaign for their needs? How can we advocate for their rights, when we don't know that much about the issue?

Do we allow cis men to get away with that cop-out when we're talking about cis women's reproductive rights?

So, guess what. If you don't know, learn. Find out. Ask. Engage trans women in the conversation. They're out there, and I bet they have a lot to say.

Ask your doctors and other medical professionals. They should be the experts, right? Find out if they are.

Does your primary care physician serve trans people? Are they welcome in your PCP's office?

Does your OB/GYN know how to serve the needs of trans women seeking hormone therapy? Does your OB/GYN treat trans men?

Does your local clinic offer services to trans people? Are they made to feel welcome there?

All women have a right to basic health care. This includes access to medication and medical treatment. This includes yearly exams, regular checkups, and any other specific diseases, infections, maladies, or concerns that pop up in-between. This includes birth control, pre- and post-natal care, labor, and abortions. And it also damn better include trans people's needs.

Even if the details of the execution (birth control v. hormone therapy) are different, the moral principle is the same. If you are pro-choice, as I like to proudly call myself, and fight for your right to basic medical care specific to your body and reproductive organs, then you need to also fight for a trans person's right to do the same.

We are feminists. We fight because the patriarchy has oppressed us for years, and we're not going to take it anymore. But we need to be aware that we are not the only group who has been and is oppressed, and I for one want to make sure that I am not oppressing anyone else. I don't want to do to others what has been done unto me.

If we leave trans women out of the discussions of and demands for women's health, then we are oppressing that group of people. And that goes against everything feminists fight for.

The health care reform debate has been hijacked by talk of abortion, which is sad because women's health care is so much more than that, even if we're only looking at the limited cis woman's definition of health care. But in all these talks, in all these calls and letters and petitions, can wen please include trans women? Can we let their voices be heard? They need health care reform more than any of us.

*See fourth paragraph from the end. But first, read all the paragraphs between the asterisk and the fourth paragraph from the end. And then read the last three paragraphs. All that to say, "women" means different things to different people; we need to be inclusive of all women.

Asking for marriage

Excellent video (stolen from The Bike Groggery's blog)

Can you afford to wait?

[Belated] Happy Women's Equality Day!

Okay, I admit it. I kind of blew it.

I didn't post anything on Women's Equality Day. I totally meant to, but today was rather busy. Away-from-my-computer busy. And when I did sit down at my computer, I didn't sit down to write the post I'd been thinking about.

In my defense, I was joining forces with fellow awesome feminist bloggers, planning secret conspiracies we plan to soon unleash on the unsuspecting patriarchy. Notice the new fancy "Criss is what a Feminist looks like!" blogroll over there, on the right? Those are my new friends. Go visit them, read their inspiring words, and leave nice comments for them.

So, on to Women's Equality Day. This is the day, in 1920, when we were first given a recognized political voice by being granted the power vote. A good day, all in all.

This morning, a thought struck me, and I realized it coincided nicely with today's date.

[Warning: shameless self-promotion -- oh, wait. I'm on my blog. Isn't the whole concept of a blog "shameless self-promotion"?]

Yesterday, my second guest post was published on Change.org's Women's Rights site. (Psst! That's your cue to go read it and comment on my brilliance. Then come back here, so we can finish this.)

My Equality Day thought: Barack Obama is a huge role model for minorities, especially African-American males. I remember reading or hearing someone point this out during the campaign, that if Obama won the election, for four (hopefully eight) years, black children would see The President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World, doing all those important presidential things, and he would be a black man. Someone who looks like them.

I don't know if you saw this photo when it happened, but it made me tear up. I think this is a huge thing.

Well, chicas, we have one of those now (and she even comes with her own catch phrase!) We have Justice Sotomayor. I don't care what your color or nationality, she's yours, too. We are all Wise Latinas.

The problem is the Supreme Court doesn't appear on TV quite as much as the President does.

Going back to the Equality Day train of thought (can you tell I should have been in bed a while ago?): I don't know how much of your high school US government class you remember, or how often you think about all that, but remember the system of checks and balances? We have three main branches of government: executive (President), legislative (Congress), and judicial (Supreme Court).

These three have the same power. They are equal. They are there to cancel each other out, or to keep each other in check, if need be.

Therefore, the President is not THE most powerful office, because the Supreme Court has the power to override what he (or she) says, if the issue is brought before the Court. Congress has the power to veto. The President has the best PR, but really, these three branches are equal.

Let's go back to Justice Sotomayor, and let's not forget Justice Ginsburg. They are expremely powerful women; they are in a position of extreme power. We need to recognize this, and remind ourselves of it. And remind those around us, who may not have taken great notes in their US government classes.

(I always thought I'd much rather be a Supreme Court Justice than President. Yes, I know the case has to come before the Court before the justices can have their say, but when they do have their say, it is The Last Word. And I am quite a fan of The Last Word.)

[Because I didn't want to blow it, even though I opened this window exactly at midnight, I did change the time on the post, so it shows as being posted at 11:59 on August 26th. So sue me.]

"Make sense, not death threats"

(I really should have posted this last week, or whenever the 40th anniversary of Woodstock was... but I still want to post it and use my clever title. Because I'm so proud of my clever title.)

I don't really have any words for this whole health care debacle. I don't even watch the news (gave that up a long time ago; there was no point since they've stopped worrying about that whole "providing information" thing), but I do click on links via Twitter and Facebook. Maybe I shouldn't, especially when those links lead to debates with racist Republican uncles (don't worry, I've blocked him. Smartest move I've made in a long time).

This video really made me want to pack up and move to a more civilized country (it's not the best quality video; you can read a transcript of the show instead, if you prefer).

EDIT: And, of course, who could forget Joe The Plumber? Of course he has something intelligent and elocuent to add to the debate! How can people stand behind a party whose prominent members are resorting to death threats instead of discussing the facts and issues, like rational, intelligent, sane people?

The few debates I have unfortunately engaged in leave me dumbfounded, because the people opposed to health care reform MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL. I don't understand the words coming out of their mouths. I understand the individual words, but the way these people string them together... I'm baffled.

I should know better than to expect logic and reason from right-wingnuts, but they are really outdoing themselves this time. Case in point?

Michelle Bachmann:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I mean, SERIOUSLY? How can you possibly not realize what you just said???

Are they from another planet? Am I?

There are teeny-tiny rays of hope in this whole thing, like MomRising.org's Healthcare Truth Squad: Everyday Heroes, Busting Myths, Spreading the Truth!

It would be nice of we could talk about the actual points of the bills. If we could deal with facts, without yelling, and without assault rifles. Is that too much to ask of a civilized nation?

"Facts? We don't need to teach you no stinkin' FACTS!"

Here in Texas, we don't need to worry about silly things like scientific facts when we teach, like, science (I mean, really -- HOW are those even related!) Evolution? That's so weak. There is no proof! It's just a theory! We're not going to let the LIBERAL MEDIA brainwash our children with their "insufficient" theories on, like, evolution and the Big Bang and whatnot.

You see how much we value factual information in our classrooms. So it is really a surprise that we don't want no stinkin' medically-accurate information in our health classes?

So far the three bills introduced in the Texas legislature this session trying to get FACTS in sex ed classes have gone nowhere. What did these radical bills demand?

• SB 1076 / HB 1567 "would require that information about contraception and disease prevention in sexuality education classes be scientifically accurate. It would also require that sexuality education classes not discourage sexually active people from using any form of contraception or method approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for reducing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases."
• SB 515 / HB 741 (Education Works) "would require that information taught in public school sexuality education classes be medically accurate. They would also require that schools teaching about sexuality education include information about the importance of abstinence and medically accurate information about contraception and other methods of responsible pregnancy and disease prevention."
• SB 1100 / HB 1694 "would require that sexuality information taught to students be medically accurate and that schools inform parents about what they are teaching in sexuality education classes."

(emphasis mine)

RADICAL, I know. We are "stealing children's innocence" by giving them MEDICALLY-ACCURATE FACTS!!! How much more depraved can you get!

As Planned Parenthood of North Texas put it in an email sent out last night,

PPNT alerted you a few days ago that representatives in Austin were introducing amendments to an education-related bill (SB 283) that would require information taught in sexuality education courses be medically accurate. Thank you to everyone who called or e-mailed your legislator in support of these amendments!

Unfortunately, the House bill sponsor Rep. Mark Shelton (R-Fort Worth), who is a doctor, chose not to accept these amendments. They were then withdrawn after a point of order ruled they were unrelated to the subject of the bill. The bill pertained to School Health Advisory Councils (SHACs), locally appointed councils whose function (among others) is to recommend sexuality education curricula to their school boards.

This means there is no guarantee Texas' teens will receive factual information in their sex ed classes next fall.

Currently, Texas law does not require that the health curriculum in Texas classrooms be medically accurate. You might think such a law would be unnecessary, but a recent survey of sex education curriculum in Texas schools* found that almost half of what is taught is scientifically unsound.

However, the session is not over—any day now, the Texas Legislature could consider other bills that could restrict access to health care or information. Stay tuned for future updates.

*by the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund

(emphasis theirs, links mine)

Somebody remind me again why I live in this state?

Sadly, the issue is way more complicated than that...

[Edited to include the video and give the names of the people involved.]

Yesterday I saw a YouTube clip of some Congressguy Congressman Tim Ryan on some cable news show Hardball talking about President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, and his call to us to find common ground on the issue of abortion and provide access to birth control to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. The Congressdude Congressman Ryan was described as "against abortion rights" but he was working with, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, a pro-choice legislator to make birth control more affordable and accessible to women, specifically low-income women, to reduce the need for abortions.

I'm all for that, but one thing the guy Congressman Ryan said bugged me. He also went on about adoption and social services, to encourage women to carry the pregnancy to term. As I write that I realize that this guy did a lot of things I like (I might have to go find the video now); he used the words "carry the pregnancy to term" instead of talking about babies or other words that make the issue more emotional. He also pointed out that not having the abortion means carrying the pregnancy to term and needing social services to care for the child, so we need to provide appropriate health care for the infant and welfare for the mother and child. (So often in the abortion debate the anti-choicers scream and holler about the "baby" but forget to add its post-partum existence into the equation.)

But back to what bugged me -- I know he had very little time to make his points and the interviewer dude kept interrupting him and asking stupid questions he'd already answered, but I got the impression the Congressman thought the only reason a woman chooses to abort instead of carrying the pregnancy to term is economic restrictions: if we provide more info and support for adoption services, women will be convinced to carry the pregnancy to term; if we provide them with proper welfare and social services programs to help them care for the child, women will carry the pregnancy to term instead of abort.

Again, the issue is not that simple. There are many, many reasons why a woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy. This is not a minor inconvenience, this is a life-changing event. Even if she does not intend to keep the child, the pregnancy itself will have a huge impact on her life (and take a huge toll on her body). Think about it. Think about, every day of those nine months.

Going to work, pregnant. Dealing with morning sickness (that lasts all day long). Fatigue, because your body is taking every available ounce of energy to form the fetus growing inside of you. Showing.

Buying new clothes to fit your new body -- bigger bras, because your breasts will get bigger (they're making milk, remember?) And, in case you don't know, bras are effin' expensive. Buying new pants. Buying new tops. Buying new shoes because your feet and ankles have swollen that much.

Think about doing your job every day, pregnant. FOR A CHILD YOU WILL NOT KEEP. Are you on your feet all day? Are you talking to people who will ask you about "the baby"? (Most low-income women -- who have difficulties affording birth control -- don't have cushy desk jobs; they have more physically-demanding jobs. Do you want to wait tables or scrub toilets or restock shelves in your third trimester? Or maybe you have a customer service job, where people will ask you all kinds of baby questions and insist on touching your stomach. What fun!)

Can you afford maternity leave? Even one weekend, to give birth and allow your body to recover? What if there are any complications with the pregnancy, and you need bedrest? Can you afford the pre-natal care? Can you afford the time off from work for the pre-natal care doctor's visits? If you suffer post-partum depression, will you be able to afford more time off to go see a psychiatrist or psychologist? What about anti-depressants, will you be able to afford those?

How are you going to face all those people you interact with on a daily basis after the baby is born, and you don't have it? How are you going to deal with their questions?

And even that is not even scratching the surface of the reasons why a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy.

This is a deeply personal issue. The reasons I had for choosing to terminate my pregnancy are totally different from the reasons any other woman in the waiting room with me in the clinic that morning had. For some, the economic factor is a big deal. For others, money is not the problem -- the problem is much bigger than that.

This is why we need to leave the option open.

We need to do everything in our power to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place (birth control, comprehensive sex ed), but we need to leave the option open, for all the other reasons that your average Congressman can't even fathom.

Yesterday I used obesity as an analogy for the reproductive rights debate. I felt a little uneasy writing about it, because I am rather ignorant on the topic. Today, I read Julie Neumann's post on Change.org's Women's Rights blog, and I felt even more unqualified to have written what I did. Eating disorders are an extremely complex issue and the reasons why a person develops an eating disorder are very personal (unique to each person, there is not one easy answer); yesterday I reduced it to the stereotyped, simplified version (in my defense, I was not discussion the issue itself in depth, I was mentioning it as an example, but still).

Julie shares quotes from several people with eating disorders saying what their eating disorder is "all about" -- the reasons why they do what they do. I felt extremely narrow-minded and ignorant as I read; there is so much more to this issue that we don't even realize, because we are not there. (It's an excellent post, please read it.)

We're not going to fix it with a Band-Aid (eating disorders or reproductive rights). We need to do everything we can to fix the known causes and fix the stuff that we can fix (health care, access to birth control, comprehensive sex ed), but we're never going to make it go away completely. Which is why we need to allow each woman to make the choice for herself.

A Lesson in Semantics: Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice

I'm sure by now you've heard about the Gallup Poll's report that More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time. As you can imagine, I have a few things to say on the subject.

The poll asked if people identified as "pro-life" or "pro-choice." The problem with asking people this question is that few people understand what these terms mean, especially when we're asking questions about political policy.

You may remember I have ranted on this topic before. This is the Cliff Notes version:

"Pro-life" does not mean, "Well, I personally would not choose to have an abortion." It does mean that you agree with a group of people who want to impose their personal beliefs on everyone. This group also seeks to limit women's access to birth control, and information about their own bodies by forcing abstinence-only programs in schools.

"Pro-choice" does not mean, "I would totally have an abortion. Rock on! I think I'm going to have unprotected sex RIGHT NOW so I can have an abortion!" It means that you understand not everyone's life is as pretty as yours, and that other people want different things and believe different things than you. It means that you want women to have access to birth control and information on how and why to use it.

Pro-life and pro-choice are not about what you would personally do with your body -- they are political stances about what laws you want the government to enact. Pro-life means you want to make one choice for everybody. Pro-choice means you want the government to step back and allow each individual woman to make the choice for herself.

Also, talking about these two sides merely in terms of ABORTION is stupid and small-minded. Discussing reproductive rights only in terms of abortion is like discussing obesity only in terms of lap-band surgery.

How do you fight obesity? Eat healthy food, eat smaller portions, exercise. Is this going to work for EVERY person? No. Some people don't need to exercise because they were blessed with good genes and a high metabolism, so they're thin and healthy naturally. Some people eat all the right foods and get regular exercise but still have problems with weight because of glandular problems, etc. (I'm not a doctor, so I can't elaborate). Some people eat crappy food and never get any exercise and develop health problems, others eat crappy food and never get any exercise and don't develop health problems. Some people are so scared of "getting fat" they develop eating disorders like anorexia or bulimia because of messages the media sends about body image and what "pretty" is supposed to look like.

"Well, people wouldn't be fat if they just went to the gym every week!" Um... that only works if you can afford a gym membership. Or the time to go to the gym or work out. And you own lots of work out clothes, so you can sweat in them and not have to do laundry every day. (No, nobody thinks about that, but do you know how many socks I had to buy when I was training for my triathlon? Do you know how expensive sports bras are? Do YOU have time to do laundry daily, especially when all you have to put in washer is a pair of socks, bike shorts and a sports bra? But I digress...)

"Well, people wouldn't be fat if they just kept their mouth closed and didn't eat that extra piece of chocolate cake!" Yes, that'll work effectively. Let's shame people into getting thin. Not like that creates eating disorders or anything. And that's the only reason people become overweight, that extra piece of chocolate cake. Life is so simple, isn't it?

The issue is complicated. Many of us don't know everything that is involved in the issue because we are not medical doctors who understand how different bodies metabolize food and process calories and protein and so on and so forth.

Do some people need surgery (lap-band, gastric bypass) to help them overcome weight problems due to obesity?

Yes.

Should every overweight person undergo surgery?

No.

If we make these surgeries legal, and allow people to have their insurance companies pay for them, would everyone above a size 10 run to get surgery?

Uh... I dunno, are they? Oh, that's right -- NO, they're not.

Discussing the issue in terms of lap-band surgery is not going to help anybody.

Providing factual, medically-accurate information about what a healthy body weight is, how to eat a balanced diet, how to incorporate regular exercise into your daily or weekly routine... these things will help people, and will help take care of the problem before it becomes a problem.

The more we talk to people about ways to prevent obesity and provide them with the tools they need to take care of their bodies (make fruits and vegetables available in grocery stores, create hike and bike trails in cities so people have a safe place to walk/jog/bike), the less people we will have needing these surgeries or suffering from weight-related problems.

This makes sense when we talk about health and obesity. Why does this not make sense when we talk about reproductive rights?

We spend all this time yelling about abortion, instead of talking about the ways to solve the problem and reduce the need for abortion.

"Pro-choice" means you want schools to provide medically accurate, age appropriate, comprehensive sex ed to teens.

"Pro-choice" means you want insurance companies to cover birth control (at least as often as they cover, say, Viagra).

"Pro-choice" means you want rape victims to be offered emergency contraception when they report the crime in the ER.

"Pro-choice" means you want EC to be available to women.

"Pro-choice" means that you agree a woman has a right to decide what happens to her own body -- that nobody has the right to mandate what choice she cannot make.

Meghan McCain recently wrote a post on the Daily Beast about the Republican Party's problem with sex. She was right about everything, except for one thing:

Here’s what I’ve never understood about the party: its resistance to discussing better access to birth control. As a Republican, I am pro-life. But using birth control and having an abortion are not the same at all. Actually, the best way to prevent abortions is to educate people about birth control and make it widely and easily accessible. True, abstinence is the only way to fully prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Still, the problem with abstinence-only education is that it does not make teenagers and young adults more knowledgeable about all the issues they face if or when they have sex—physically and emotionally.

Meghan, if you want access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed, which you must because that's what you just wrote, then you are pro-choice. You may not like abortion, and you may never choose one yourself personally*, but if you want better education about sex and contraception, if you want women to have access to birth control, then you are part of the pro-choice movement. It's not about abortion, it's about reproductive rights. This includes birth control and comprehensive sex ed.

As Jezebel pointed out:

It seems, slowly, that the anti-abortion folks are being incrementally successful in defining "pro-choice" as "very, very pro-abortion".

We're not "pro-abortion." Our goal is not for women to get abortions. (If it were, we'd join the abstinence-only, no-EC, birth-control-not-covered-by-insurance bandwagon in a jiffy! Really, can you think of a better way to increase the number of abortions? Whoo-hoo!)

Our goal is for women to have access to a safe and legal abortion, if they ever need it. In the meantime, we're doing all we can to prevent the situation where she would ever need it.

Eat your veggies. Take the stairs. Use birth control. Be pro-choice.

Or at least admit to it, since more than likely you already are.**



*Not saying anything about Meghan, but I used to think I'd never have an abortion. Until I got pregnant. Many women tell the same story. Just something to keep in mind.


**Your voting patterns say so (make sure you make it to the end... the article has a lot of anti-choice nonsense, skim through that).

Blogging for #FairPay

I must confess, I didn't know the story behind Lilly Ledbetter. I had heard her name in the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but that would be it. If you don't know either, go read her story here.

To find out more about the Fair Pay Campaign here, and be sure to check out all the nice linky-links they have for you to click. Also check out the Feminist Majority Foundation's article on Equal Pay Day. You might also want to read this blog post, which is much better than the rambling drivel you will encounter below.

I feel a little silly blogging about equal pay, because my job actually does have equal pay. We have a chart, voted on by the school board (months after we sign out contract), that says how much we get paid, based on how many years we've taught. It has nothing to do with job performance; just the number of years you have survived in the trenches. Therefore, a guy with 5 years of experience is going to make the same amount as a girl with 5 years of experience.

Many aspects of teaching stink, but at least we have job security (a nice commodity in a recession) and equal pay.*

When I was interviewing for my first job, I interviewed with two districts. One had offered me a job first, but I really wanted to work at the other district. My step-dad told me to use the first job offer as leverage with the second district, to get the second district to offer me more money. I tried to explain to him that education didn't work that way, that I was not going to find out my salary until sometime in August (I was interviewing in March/April).

I don't get to ask for a raise. I get a raise based on the district's taxes, or lack thereof. If there is money, I get a raise whether I deserve it or not. (If I were to stay in this district, I'd get a pretty hefty raise next year because they're desperate for teachers and are hoping to attract employees with a higher paycheck.)

The point to all this? There are two: A) my work is not rewarded; nobody cares if I do a good job or not, I'd still get paid the same. But that's not related to today's topic, so we won't harp on that today. B) I may not get to ask for a raise when I do a good job, but you do.

I'll be the first to admit I'm rather ignorant about this topic (again, then why did I sign up to blog for it? Because that's how I roll); part of the reason for that is because this particular issue does not affect me directly (yet). However, my ignorance and inexperience is not going to stop me from mouthing off about it, and saying something that might ruffle quite a few feathers.

Ladies, part of this wage difference might be our own fault.

GENERALLY (not always), women tend to be reluctant to toot their own horn. Men have no problem singing their own praises, especially successful business men (that's how they got where they are, after all). This becomes a problem when performance evaluations come up: your male colleague will tell the evaluator about all the great things he has done (sometimes taking credit for a team's or coworker's efforts) and why he deserves a raise; while you will, generally, try to be polite, modest, and not come across as conceited, so you will downplay compliments, attribute your success to the team's efforts, etc.

We tend to be uncomfortable selling ourselves, so when it's time to decide who gets a raise, or how much of a raise, the guy, who did a stellar job of selling himself and demonstrating what a valuable asset he is to the company, will get a beefy raise. The woman, who prefers to just get the job done without drawing extra attention to herself, work behind the scenes, and who presentr herself more as a "team player" instead of a strong leader, is not going to seem as valuable to the evaluator, so she won't get the same raise.

When women try to be more aggressive and straightforward, when we try to talk "like men," we get tagged as "a bitch" or "a ball-buster." (Uh... Hillary, anyone? HOW DARE SHE HAVE OPINIONS AND SPEAK UP!)

I'm scared to say too much on the subject, because it's a touchy one and I'm not the expert. For a quick intro, read this article by Deborah Tannen. For the full thing, read her book Talking from 9 to 5, about how men and women communicate in the workplace. FASCINATING READ.

(As she says in the article, not ALL MEN follow those patterns and not ALL WOMEN do either, but a large part of what she says is true for a large part of men and women, and our society. Being aware of these communication differences -- and biases -- is taking a huge step toward improving communication and being heard.)

I know these communication differences are not the only reason for the discrepancy in pay between men and women. But there's something to it: we women need to speak up about this more. Things like Equal Pay Day are a good start, but "act locally." Ask for that raise. Make sure your boss knows how much he needs you and what an asset you are. Toot your own horn, often.

We have to fight for these things, locally and globally. They're not just going to give it to us because it's the right thing to do. (Yes, it is sad. But we do have to convince them.)

Call your Senators and urge them to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act! Sign up to receive alerts and updates from the National Women's Law Center, so you know what's going on and what you can do about it. Talk about this at the water cooler! We need to ask for what we want, out loud.

Here ends today's rant. I'll leave you with a few bullet points (from NWLC), just for fun:

• Today, Equal Pay Day, marks the point in 2009 when the avg woman’s wages finally catch up with those paid 2 the avg man in 2008
  
• It takes women in the U.S. almost 16 months to be paid as much as men were paid in a year. http://bit.ly/KvkVH
  
• Women in the U.S. are still paid only 78¢ for every dollar paid to men. http://bit.ly/KvkVH
  
• Urge your Senators to vote YES on the Paycheck Fairness Act: http://bit.ly/yuQNU
  
• See what the wage gap is for women in your state: http://bit.ly/JWYEv
  

*That is, if you don't take into consideration the stipends coaches get... I have no info on those, but A) coaches tend to be male (yes, even for girls' sports) and B) FOOTBALL. How much do the seventeen FOOTBALL coaches make, as opposed to the girls' basketball coach? (Remember, this is TEXAS.)

Abortion, pregnancy, and slavery

So, according to Mike Huckabee, abortion is like slavery. So, if you're against slavery, then you have to be against abortion, too, for the same reasons. Because they're the same. (Read the lovely article here: Huckabee likens abortion to slavery at Missouri fundraiser - Kansas City Star.)

According to Mr. Huckabee, slavery was about having "life-or-death power over another," and it is still immoral "that one person could own another human being and have full control even to the point of life and death over that other human being."

Uh, Mr. Huckabee, did you perchance get your sex ed in Texas or Florida? Are you even aware of what pregnancy is, or how it works?

The way pregnancy works, the woman has "full control even to the point of life and death" over the parasite living inside of her. That's the way the system is set up -- that's the way God set it up to work. Did you catch that whole "inside of her" part?

If the woman does not take proper care of herself, what happens to that fetus? If the woman does not have access to proper pre-natal health care, what happens to that fetus? If the woman takes drugs (illegal or prescribed) during the pregnancy, what happens to that fetus?

YOU CANNOT SEPARATE THEM. I really wish you people would stop talking as if you could.

Just as the woman has complete control, "life-and-death power," over the fetus inside of her, that fetus also has that same "life-or-death power" over the woman. In some cases, the fetus has the power to kill the woman. It happens, often.

This is not done by "choice" by either party, this is the way the effin' system works. This is the way pregnancy was designed. The woman and the fetus are inherently tied, and cannot be separated. The life of the one is deeply affected by the existence of the other, and the potential life of the other depends on the choices made by the one.

Even after they are separated, after the baby is born, it still depends wholly on the mother -- whether the biological one or a surrogate. The mother's life is forever changed, and her health, as it was during the pregnancy (even one without complications) is affected, negatively. If that baby is going to survive, someone needs to care for it, literally 24/7, until it develops to the point where it can move and communicate on its own, and can take care of itself. That newborn has taken control of that woman's life.

Yes, for a woman who wants that baby, the risks and harms, and work, are well worth it, but that doesn't mean they are not there. (On a coincidentally timely note, Heather Armstrong's book on her experience with post-partum depression, and how it nearly killed her, was released today. Check it out.)

My point is, your argument about how one life should not have "life-or-death power" over another? God made that happen. He designed it that way. Go tell Him it's "immoral."

And must I state the obvious? When you stand on your platforms and tell me I can't terminate an unwanted pregnancy because of what you believe, how is that NOT you having control over my life?

When I first started this post, I was enraged that you would so cheaply use slavery to peddle your anti-choice views. But, now that you've made me think about it, the comparison you make is twistedly apt.

Taking away our reproductive rights and freedoms is, in fact, a new form of slavery. You are forcing women to be slaves to their bodies. You are controling our lives and our decisions. As if you owned us.

You do not have a right to own us. To control our lives in this way. If you find slavery immoral, then by that very same reasoning, you must find the anti-choice movement immoral.

The power of words and the definition of marriage

Look it up: Dictionaries recognized same-sex unions under 'marriage' years before states - WHO

The first year I taught third grade, a colleague lent me the book Frindle, to read to the kids. I had nothing else to read to them during SSR (Sustained Silent Reading time, after lunch), so I gladly accepted the book. Little did I know what I was in for...

The story is about this kid who butts heads with his English teacher. She's super mean and has this huge dictionary on this almost-shrine at the front of the room, because she practically worships words and language (and makes her students do tons of homework every night).

So the kid comes up with an idea, just to tick the teacher off. Instead of using the word "pen" for pen, he calls the pen a "frindle."

The kids in the class all jump on the bandwagon (at least until they all get detention, but that's secondary). The feud becomes so huge (because both characters are too pig-headed to back down) and soon the whole city is involved. People start making t-shirts with the word "frindle" on them. The local news, then the state news, then the national news start talking about this. It became a huge thing, and people all over the country started using the word "frindle."

Spoiler to follow, so skip the next paragraph if you're planning on reading this book.

At the end of the book, years after the kid has graduated (middle school and high school) and the teacher has long retired, the kid gets a package in the mail. From the teacher. It's the newest edition of the dictionary, with a note to turn to page so-and-so. Where the word "frindle" is listed, meaning "pen." Because the word became part of the general lexicon.

Will you think less of me if I tell you that ending made me cry?

Merriam-Webster said in a statement Wednesday that the edited entry merely reflected the frequency with which the term "same-sex marriage" had popped up in print and become part of the general lexicon.

This is what I love about languages. They are alive. And we control them.

What's the definition of "marriage"? Whatever we want it to be. However we use the word, that's how it's going to be used. Whatever meaning we give it, that's what it's going to mean.

Marriage is a union between two people who love each other and have made a commitment to love and cherish one another til death do them part. Whatever color, or sex, or size, or religious belief, or whatever they may be, whether a totally irrelevant third party thinks they "match" or not.

Same-sex, different-sex, it's still marriage. The dictionary has been saying so for years -- because we have.

Science, schmience!

Don't penalize Texas students for any belief about science, bill says | Top Stories | Star-Telegram.com

Really, Texas legislature? Really?

Please, fight your ideological battles outside the classroom.

What's next, 2+2 can equal whatever you want? After all, if one loaf of bread and two fish can feed multitudes, then what does that say about math?

Can you hear the rest of the country laughing at us? Because I can.

If you live in Texas, please call your legislators and ask them to oppose HB 4224, authored by Rep. Wayne Christian, R-Center. Please.