Rape Culture: Why We Do Have To Point Out The Obvious

From a current, popular YA novel I'm reading:

Twenty minutes later, [he] had wrestled [her] into his bedroom, padlocked the door, and vigorously launched into a nonstop drum solo.

He's done this because he's trying to force her to tell him something, a secret she (um, kind of obviously) doesn't want to share with him yet because she does not feel comfortable doing it. She hates when he plays the drums, mainly because of the extremely loud noise, which is why he bangs on the drums with her locked in the room.

An hour after that they ended up on the roof. [She] had distracted [him] just long enough to escape through his window, but he followed so swiftly that she panicked and scaled the ladder.
"Really? The roof is your getaway plan?" he said teasingly, balancing on the shingles. "Don't you watch horror movies?" He turned around and kicked the ladder away. It fell to the ground with a soft thump.

The author has a problem with exaggeratedly over-the-top use of hyperbole, which really does not help this scene at all. I know she's not trying to say what she's actually saying here. But she's saying it.

The guy wants the girl to do something. The girl doesn't want to do it. So it's okay -- humorous, even -- for him to use physical force to take the girl into his bedroom, PADLOCK the door, and do unpleasant and painful things to her until she does what he wants her to do.

She is so uncomfortable in this situation, she ESCAPES through the window. So he follows her, and knocks the ladder off the roof, trapping her. Here, she finally gives in and does what he wants her to do.

And this scene is supposed to be funny, or cute. There is nothing wrong with the guy doing any of this to the girl; nothing objectionable has happened, because she was going to tell him the thing eventually anyway, right?

Stuff like this is what feeds (or creates) rape culture.

(While I have you here... every time in books, movies, TV shows when the guy kisses the girl, and she looks or acts surprised or shocked or disgusted, but after a few seconds -- during which the guy holds the kiss, generally physically holding on to her and holding her to him, even though the girl is clearly not responding positively and in some cases she's even trying to get him off her -- she eventually "gives in" and kisses him back, yeah, that's rape culture. That's sending a strong message that, guys, if she doesn't immediately want you, you're just not trying hard enough. KEEP PUSHING YOURSELF ON HER!!)

"Oh, it's just a book! Lighten up!"

Books, TV shows, movies send us messages. They do. They model behavior for us, and we internalize those messages (subconsciously, which is why you don't realize it). What's described above is so effed up if you take a second to think about it. But it's been so normalized by the media we don't even think about it. The kiss scenario? It happened in Ratatouille. A kids' movie about a mouse that cooks. And the guy wasn't even really trying to kiss the girl -- the rat makes him kiss her to keep him from telling her the secret. Even when you don't even want to kiss the girl, it's okay to force yourself on her and kiss her against her will. (Ah, yes, The Little Mermaid's "Kiss the Girl"... ugh, do I have to spell that one out for you? Google the lyrics and read them, without the music or the funny crab's accent.)

If you see nothing wrong with the scene quoted above, then you see nothing wrong with physically trapping another person in a closed space and inflicting pain on that person until that person does what you want hir to do.

If you see nothing wrong with physically trapping another person and inflicting pain on that person until that person does what you want hir to do, then why would you think rape is wrong?

This is what we're talking about when we say we need to teach people not to rape. Before we can teach people that rape is wrong, we need to make sure they understand what rape is.

We're not talking about the mythical stranger in the dark alley waiting for the drunk girl with the short skirt and her hair in a long ponytail walking alone in a bad part of town alone late at night -- that guy knows what he's doing is wrong, he just doesn't care.

The good news is, very few rape cases involve the violent stranger in the dark alley (the guy who knows it's wrong but does it anyway, the guy who won't be deterred by prevention campaigns or laws or prison sentences). Most of them involve the dude at the bar, the guy who asked you out on a date, the uncle or older cousin you see once a year at the annual family reunion, your coworker, your boss, your teacher, the guy in your economics class who crashed your friend's party, your neighbor... you know, those guys. Guys who are "nice guys," who would never do something "bad," who would never "hurt" a girl... Wait, what? Lock her in a room with me until she agrees to do what I want her to do that she has clearly expressed she does not want to do? Well, yeah, I'd do that... but that's totally different!! Um, right?

No, it's not. And that's why we're talking about it. This is what we're talking about.

We're talking about the "nice guy" who tries for the third time tonight to rub his hands on his date's thigh, even though she has pushed his hand away every time and keeps inching away from him.

We're talking about the guy who tells himself she's just "playing hard to get" when she says no and pushes him away.

We're talking about the guy who thinks that because she didn't "affirmatively say no" (because she was too drunk to say anything), that's good enough and he can go ahead and have sex with her.

We're talking about the guy who looks at a girl who's passed out and thinks it's okay, that it's funny, to post photos and video of her online saying she's "so raped."

We're talking about the guy who thinks it's funny to make jokes about rape. And we're talking about all the guys who will jump in to defend that guy when he gets called out for saying, "Wouldn't it be funny if, like, five guys raped her right now?"

We're talking about explaining how all of these things create and perpetuate rape culture. How they excuse proto-rapist behavior. How they lead to rape scenarios, and to your bros encouraging you to act in rapey ways.

I'm sorry if it makes you "uncomfortable." I'm sorry if it bothers you if you see at least part of yourself in the descriptions above. Sometimes, that's exactly what we need in order to see clearly, to motivate us to make positive changes.

And I know you know better than to imply that your discomfort should in any way supersede or dismiss the pain and torture of being a victim of sexual assault... right?

The Beyoncé Super Bowl Performance Photos

Dear Internetz:

Hi.

Have you never asked someone to not post an unflattering photo of you, one they took when you were in the middle of saying something or chewing? Have you never heard someone ask you to not post an unflattering photo of them?


Yes, I know... you're a cesspool of misogyny and sexism, partly because so is much of our society, but also because you make anonymity so easy and anonymity so easily leads to assholery.


But, really, y'all. Those photos? The ones the publicist, DOING HER JOB, "respectfully [asked] you to change" (not "remove from the Internet," which is A) impossible and B) a stupid thing to ask)?


Why are you sharing them?

Does it seem UNREASONABLE that her publicist would ask that these photos not be posted?

They're crappy photos. She's in the middle of a performance, in the middle of singing a song. She's a good performer, and she's singing the song with passion and expression -- you know, the way kind of have to if you want to perform it well. Oh, and she's doing this whole dance routine at the same time, too. Something else she's doing with passion and expression, because she wants it to be good. Which it is.

Pick a famous or talented artist, I bet you anything at one point in their career someone took a photo where that artist was making a face as ugly as this one, or worse. 

A good photographer, one who happens to be good at hir craft and also happens to be a decent human being, looks at those photos and deletes them, because they're crappy photos. The asshole who took this one, however, thought he could get money (or something?) out of it, so he posted it.

It's really sad to see all the lemming assholes following suit.

Don't be that asshole. Knock it off. You're better than that, Internetz. Please try, just a little bit. Try to be decent human being, I know you have it in you, somewhere, deep down in there...

It would be so nice, dear Internetz, if we could pretend you learned something from a previous, related incident. Were you paying attention? You should have been. Luckily, one of the beauties of you, Internetz, is that you preserve moments (not just the crappy ones), so we can always go back and revisit something we may have missed. Go back, watch the video, listen to what Anne Hathaway says. Let's see if we can get that to sink in.

Loves, 

Criss.

Musings on Mass Shootings, Part 3: Being "Shocked"

I was chastised on FB for posting that I was not "shocked" or "surprised" about the shooting in Connecticut.

Things that happen all the time are not shocking. And, the more I've thought about it, the angrier I've gotten at everyone who has expressed "shock" at what happened.

When you say you are "shocked" about the shooting, you are feeding the myth that events like this are rare, unexpected, isolated events.

They are not.

Something that happens six times in one year is not rare. Gun deaths are not unexpected in this country. They happen so much, we don't even bother reporting them or talking about them half the time. When something big enough that it will make a good ratings-grabbing story happens, we plaster that all over the news (until something shinier comes along, which generally happens in a day or two). Dude, a bunch of little kids had something bad happen to them? Wow! People love that stuff!! Shove cameras and mics in some kindergartners'  faces STAT!! (I have purposefully avoided coverage of this story because, well, that coverage would be on the news, and I'm not playing their disgusting game, but given that this school was in Connecticut, I wager the majority of the people affected are, um, lighter-skinned, no? But that's another blog post.)

This was not something "shocking." It was something horrible. It was something tragic. 

But it was something that happens way too often.

We shouldn't be "shocked." Maybe the first few times, yeah. But by this point? If you're still "shocked," you're not paying attention, and I need you to pay attention.

By this point, you need to be enraged. You need to be outraged. And you need to DO something about it.

Holding yet another candlelight vigil isn't going to do anything. We've done those, nothing's changed.

Arguing about gun control isn't going to do anything either, because instead of talking about things, people start screaming about ridiculous extremes and we never talk about the actual issues, the actual problems, or the actual possible solutions. (Isn't it nice to know the reproductive rights debate isn't the only one who suffers from this particular ailment?)

Arguing about gun control isn't useful either because gun control (or lack thereof) isn't the only problem.

We need to talk about out attitude toward violence, particularly gun violence. What do we choose to put on TV? What do we choose to put in our movies? What do we put in magazines? What does our language reflect? What do our expressions reflect? How do we talk about violence?

We also seriously need to change how we talk about mental health. Can we please stop using "crazy" and "insane" as insults or pejoratives? Can we stop pinning "inspirational" crap about how if you're depressed you're holding on to your past instead of looking to your future, or that you're not praying enough? Can we stop telling people that they're only feeling "depressed" or "sad" because they don't eat enough organic food or aren't exercising enough or the right way? Can we stop blanket vilifying medication, or the need for it? Can we openly talk about mental health? About needing help? About getting help?

Or, and on that note... can we please give people access to that help? Insurance coverage for mental health, and enough time off from work to go to therapy weekly if that's what the person needs? Hey, I need to leave early one day a week, or come in late one day a week, or take an extra-long lunch one day a week. I'll be happy to make up the time by staying late one a day a week, but I need the ability to have that flexibility in my schedule, without you ridiculing me or harassing me about it. Because, seriously, what's going to change if I stay late on Wednesdays and come in late on Thursdays? How different is that from leaving on time every Wednesday and coming in on time every Thursday? I'm working the same amount of hours. Allow the flexibility. Find a time that works for the employee and the employer, but find that time without creating a hardship for the employee.

Don't be "shocked." When you're "shocked," you just stand there.

Be angry. Angry people get stuff done. Let's fix this problem.

Musings on Mass Shootings, Part 2: Self-defense

On anther conversation on FB, a friend, proud gun-owner, said she owns an assault weapon and "doesn't wish to kill anyone." 

Well...

The only purpose of a gun is to kill.

If you own a gun, you do so because you plan on using it at some point. And, by design, the reason you use a gun is because you want to kill someone. (If you plan on using a gun to shoot empty cans in an abandoned field, then go buy a Nerf gun. If you own a real gun to shoot cans, then you're too stupid to be trusted with a real gun.)

She did, further down the thread, say she had the gun for protection; she felt safer when she was in the house  alone because of the gun. If you're using the gun "for protection," you are planning on killing someone. You are planning on killing the intruder who's coming in to attack you.

That's not a problem. (If someone is breaking into your house to attack you, yeah, you get to kill them to stop them from killing you first. I'm okay with that.)

But please own up to it.

Oh, and, also? Please do plan on doing it.

If you do not actually want to kill that intruder coming into your house to attack you, then you don't understand how guns work. Guns are for killing, not for scaring. If you point the gun at the intruder and think that is going to be enough to make him go, "Good golly! Well, gee-wilikers, ma'am, I'm ever so sorry to have bothered you. I'll show myself out, if you don't mind."

If you're pointing a gun at someone, you have just given that person permission to shoot you dead first, and given hir a really, really good reason to do so quickly.

I still want to scream at the woman I saw on the news decades ago, when there was a serial rapist in the area where I lived (so I wasted part of my day watching the local news -- hey, I was in college, I didn't know any better. I thought I could actually get information from watching the local news). This woman was so proud of herself, because she was prepared for that rapist, by golly!

"I have a gun right here in my purse! And if that rapist tries to come after me, well, I'll just shoot him in the kneecaps!"

(It was a good thing this was way back when we had the old, fat TVs, because when I started throwing stuff at it, it didn't tip over, like a flatscreen would have.)

Really, woman? REALLY??

Because the dude's just going to stand there while you fish your gun out of your purse, take off the safety, and aim at HIS KNEECAPS.

If this is the way you think guns work, this is the way you think they can be used, you are too stupid to have a real gun. Give it back. And who thought you were capable enough to handle a real gun in the first place??

(Yes, I know, this was ONE person I happened to see on a newscast, and they probably looked for the stupidest clip out of all the people they interviewed. Yes, it is possible that she is the only person in the world who is THIS clueless and thoughtless about guns and how they work. If you think that, I wish I could overestimate humanity the way you do.)

We don't like to admit that we want to kill another person. That just sounds so... mean. And many of us do not think we would be capable of killing another person, even if our life, or the life of a loved one, were in danger. Then there's those of us who don't think we'd ever be able to shoot a gun accurately enough to kill that person coming into my house to hurt me or my child (even if I wanted to do so).

I get that you want to protect your house and your loved ones.

What I don't get is that, with all the brains and ingenuity and entrepreneurship in this country (or all the brains and ingenuity and entrepreneurship that we're always bragging about having in this country), we have not been able to come up with something better than a handgun or an assault weapon.

I don't mean "better" as in "making more people more dead more fast." I mean "better" as in "accomplishing the goal in a safer, more efficient manner with as few side effects or problems as possible."

What about stun guns? Can we develop stun guns to be an effective way to stop an intruder in your home?

What about tranquilizer guns? Like elephant-grade tranquilizer guns?

Why can't we find something that will stop the Bad Guy quickly, is easy to use, and won't cause irreparable DEATH if your kid gets a hold of it and takes it to school, or takes it out to show his friends how cool it is so they'll let him into the Cool Kids Club?

I am honestly asking. Those of you who want to have a gun in the home to defend your home, does it have to be something that will KILL the guy? Or do you just want to stop him, to save yourself and your family?

Me, personally, I don't want to learn how to shoot a gun. I don't know if I have what it takes to pull the trigger, and I don't know if I have what it takes to hit the target. Yes, it is highly likely that in the panic and adrenaline of the moment, if I or my son were in immediate, intense danger I would be able to pull the trigger, but I doubt I would have any accuracy if my state of mind and mood were that affected. However, I can totally see myself shooting tranquilizer darts all over the flippin' place.

I bet there are several people who do not want guns, but who would be open to non-lethal alternatives.

So why don't we want to come up with any? Where is the Steve Jobs of personal defense?

Are these things out there, and I just haven't heard about them because nobody talks about them? Do elephant-grade tranquilizer drugs have more restrictions on them than semi-automatic weapons? And if so, have we seriously not ever stopped to question that and perhaps suggest we flip those???

I know stun guns and elephant-grade tranquilizer are not 100% safe. I don't have any facts or information on side effects and other information, but something tells me guns are significantly more lethal than stun guns and tranquilizers (even elephant-grade ones -- and by the way, ever heard of hyperbole? We don't necessarily need elephant-grade tranquilizers. Lion-grade or alligator-grade would probably work just fine). Please don't tell me my argument is stupid because there are possible side effects to heavy-duty tranquilizers and/or extremely high voltages of stun guns (or repeated exposure to high voltages of stub guns). How do those numbers compare to the number of people who die from being shot?

So, seriously, honestly. Why do we never talk about OTHER self-defense options?

Musings on Mass Shootings, Part 1: The Second Amendment

After a few conversation threads on FB, I've had several thoughts about the shooting in Connecticut and, well, all the other shootings we've had (so far) this year and all the gun deaths that go unreported because they're not good-looking, affluent, and/or white people dying.

First, let's get this one out of the way: the big hullabaloo is about The Almighty Second Amendment.

As one FB friend pointed out, we don't give much of a hoot these days on what The Founding Fathers' original intent was regarding the rights of women or Black people (we've allowed President Obama to be elected president TWICE, and he's not even supposed to be a FULL PERSON according to the Original Intent of The Almighty Founding Fathers!!! oh, wait... is that why Congress has refused to work with the Prez? Because he's only three-fifths of a person?) We've realized The Founding Fathers, omnipotent and all-knowing as they were, were... um... how can I put this... WRONG about some things.

*watches for lightning*

*none strikes*

*carries on*

Isn't the whole idea of amendments to the Constitution kind of proof that The Almighty Founding Fathers kind of... knew that they did not know EVERYTHING? That things may change and changes may need to be made as things change?

If the right for citizens to own personal arsenals were that key to the existence and success of this country, shouldn't that have been part of the original Constitution, instead of merely an amendment?

However, let's leave all that over there for a second.

The Almighty Second Amendment, according to the National Archives, reads as follows:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

(That must have been a severe comma surplus they had going on back in Revolutionary times. Were they that angry with the King they had to not only whoop his army, but also butcher his language? But I digress...)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" because we need those people to be "a well-regulated militia" because such "well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State."

Have the people clamoring about the Second Amendment read the Second Amendment? Doesn't it say right there "well-regulated"?? So why are we against regulations? Good ones, that would keep the militia, these armed people who keep and bear arms, well regulated?

Oh, yeah... and that "militia" part? Doesn't that clearly indicate that the people who keep and bear arms are in this "well-regulated militia" (because that's the reason we're not infringing on their right to keep and bear their arms)? So... are all gun owners enlisted in the Army Reserves? And if not WHY NOT?? Don't you want to make The Founding Fathers proud?? Don't you want to honor their wishes and Original Intent??

How can you be a "well-regulated militia" if you're not in an organized group, like the Army Reserves? Or better yet, actual military service? You can't sit in your house with your guns and claim to be part of "a well-regulated militia." Sorry, NO.

The Founding Fathers, your buddies, gave you (after they thought about it for a while, since they didn't include it in the real document to begin with) the right to defend your country, not your house. Don't put words in The Founding Fathers' mouths, just because they're dead. That's not nice or fair.

Look, I'm not saying that I personally believe every person who wants to own a gun needs to enlist in the Army (or other Armed Forces) in order to earn the privilege of having a gun in hir house. All I'm saying is that if you're going to use the Second Amendment as your reason, then you'd better know what it says and what it means. Unless you're ready to discuss establishing some good regulations on gun ownership and perhaps imposing some civic duty components into gun ownership, please STFU about the Second Amendment.

(PS: I'm sure none of what I've written here is original or revolutionary. But it's the first time I've thought of it and the first time I've said it, and this is my blog so there. I get to say what I want, no matter how many other great minds have said the same thing before me.)

This post got kind of long (who, me, rambling?? What?? Who'd a thunk it...) so I'm going to stop here. (That, and I sort of forgot my other brilliant thoughts while posting this one. Let me revisit those FB threads and take notes this time.) But hey, kids, stay tuned!

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

Some thoughts on the Penn State thing: educators and administrators reporting abuse (or not)

I used to get my news via Twitter, but even that got too depressing. I've been taking a hiatus, enjoying that whole Mom thing, focusing my energies on that.

I still hear about crap that happens in the news. Like this whole Penn State thing.

When I taught (K-12, in Texas), every year we had to sit through at least one in-service meeting about reporting child abuse. If you see something, if you hear something, if you think there's abuse going on, you  have to report it. It's the law to report it. if you don't, you can be sued, go to jail, etc.

This, really, should all be a given.

But, as I hear more about the Penn State thing (a graduate assistant saw it, he reported it to his supervisor, nobody did anything), I remembered the addendum to the in-service that we were told at the elementary school where I worked.

The training said we HAD to report the abuse. They gave us the number to call. The administration, and the counselor, were there to help us, if we wanted someone to be there when we made the call to Child Protective Services (in case we were nervous about the questions they would ask, or intimidated, or whatever).

But, somehow, "the administration is there to help you make the report" somehow turned into "if you think there is something to report, you  have to go to the administration first, and they'll make the call for you." We were not allowed to call CPS directly -- we HAD to go to the administration, and/or the counselor, and they would make the call for us, I guess with us in the room. But the call had to be made by the person in authority, the school principal. Not the lowly teacher.

I was concerned about a student once, and I went to the principal. I can't remember the details, because this was years ago, but the gist is I was told not to call. The administration was familiar with the situation, they knew the family, and they were sure nothing "bad" was going on. They would "keep an eye on it," though, and if there was anything to be concerned about, they would call CPS.

Now, I went to them because I was concerned about some things the parent had said (one comment that still stands clear in my mind: "If child abuse were legal, I'm telling you, I would abuse her!", said because the girl was so "difficult" and headstrong... well, if you're saying crap like that, you're probably abusing her already, love...) and some things the girl said in class. I had no "evidence," and what I had could easily be dismissed as "parenting choice." I went to the counselor about it because she knew the family (the girl and her brothers, and the older half-sister who was now in junior high), and had known them for years. This was my first year at the school, and my first year working in elementary (which is quite different from high school).

And, yeah, calling CPS was a little intimidating. Especially when all you have to say is, "The mom is a b!tch and I don't like her. And the daughter dresses too sexy for her age, which I don't like either."

So I went to my supervisors. And they told me to not worry my pretty little head about it, just look the other way and go on about my business.

What happened at Penn State is not new. Nor is it unusual (erm, hello, Catholic Church, anyone?) It happened to be really big, and involving prominent players (fancy, well-known coach; popular football team). But, now that I think about it, the very same thing could have happened at the cozy little elementary school where I worked. Maybe it has happened, but since none of the people who work there are famous (and the parents and the district have enough money to cover it up, probably, or keep it relatively quiet), no one has found out about it.

What if a substitute teacher, or a teaching aide, or a first-year teacher actually witnessed abuse? The elementary school has students from kinder to sixth grade. What if a sixth-grader were molesting a kindergartner? The sub, or aide, or teacher would go to the administration, as she had been told. Plus, that's a pretty traumatic thing to witness, I would want to have someone "in control," someone to help me cope. Someone to hold my hand.

And then the principal does what he did to me. "Thanks for telling us. We'll take care of it."

Because they don't want to upset the parents (that was a pretty strong theme at that school). They don't want to risk a lawsuit, accusing someone of something that probably didn't happen. They don't want the negative publicity the school would get, if this got on the news. The sub/aide/teacher probably misinterpreted the situation, anyway...

So they don't call. Maybe they tell the sub/aide/teacher that they did call, maybe they tell her it's been "handled;" maybe they tell her to forget about it, or, if she asks again, even threaten her, telling her she needs to move on, forget about what she thinks she saw.

What's the policy where you work?

What's the policy where your children go to school?

What's the written, official policy, and what's the "informal" policy the administration tells the teachers?

Tweet

Motherhood Changes You

Motherhood (and parenting) changes you.

One big difference I've noticed is, since the pregnancy, I crave chocolate. I know that this is nothing new, stereotypically; I've always had a sweet tooth (several, actually, and they match my collection of root canals), but I've always been much more into sweet, fruity candy (cherry Pull-n-Peel Twizzlers and gummy bears and Skittles and such) than into chocolate... but since the pregnancy, I've been in dire need of dark chocolate. And not so much the fruity candy.

The pregnancy somehow changed my genetic makeup.

But on a more serious note...

I've flow on planes loads of times. I like flying. I like turbulence -- it's like a little roller coaster during the flight. I love the way your stomach dips when the wheels of the plane lose contact with the ground, and the bump when they touch down again. I am not squeamish about flying AT ALL.

MonkeyBoy took his first ever plane ride last week.

On our last flight, the flight attendant came over and let us know the plane was equipped with an infant life vest, which was underneath the seat across the aisle on the row in front of us. The card with all the safety info had illustrations of an infant in said life vest, floating on the water -- ALONE -- in his glow-in-the-dark life vest.

I made Freddy put the card away, because looking at it made me feel nauseous. I hugged my chubby baby and tried really hard to ignore the flight attendant cheerily pantomiming the safety information.

A while back I went to see a play where the main character is a gay teen. On one scene, he calls him mom and tries to come out to her, but she won't let him say the words. Then she has a song about her baby boy growing up... can't remember what the song said exactly, but she was, obviously, sad (I haven't decided yet if she was upset that her son was gay because she thought it was a sin -- the poor guy was at a Catholic boarding school -- or because she knew how hard his life would be, the hate and discrimination he would face, because he was gay). I fine with all this until the stage behind the mom started showing a slideshow of the guy's baby and childhood photos. When I saw that first baby photo, I lost it. Gut? Wrenched. I wanted to be home, with my baby, hugging him, protecting him from all the hate and ignorance and bigotry out there.

I have a superhuman ability to survive and function on a ridiculously minuscule amount of sleep. And, most of the time, I manage to even be cheerful.

Motherhood changes you.

But you know what hasn't changed?

I still don't regret my abortion.

Tweet

A Kid's Reaction to a Gay Couple

As you can see, this poor child is permanently damaged. For life. He walks out of the room and falls straight into Hell.

"I'm going to play ping-pong now. You play if you want to."

See how horrified he is of seeing two men who love each other???

Tweet

Schlotzsky's Bathroom Signage #FAIL

Funny name, serious sexism.



(OK, it's a REALLY bad photo. Sorry. In case you can't read it: the men's restroom is labeled "MANLY BUNZ." The women's? "SHAPELY BUNZ."

Really, Schlotzsky's? Really??)

On babies "choosing"

I had to share Tanya N.s comment from the Facebook discussion I was sort-of following:

If unborn babies could see into their future and decide if they wanted to be born or not, I would be all for letting them decide. Since they CAN'T, it's up to their mother to make the best decision they can for them.

No baby chooses to be conceived or born. And again, I don't believe that aborted babies CARE that they didn't "have a chance" or not. To me, that is a projection of feelings that just don't exist...

Exactly.

Tweet

Abortion: Totally Just Like A Spare Tire

Tweet

Birthing Rights ARE Reproductive Rights

So now that I'm a momma, I'm all into the online birthing communities, too. Birthing rights and all that jazz... which is really just a subset of reproductive rights. My body, my choice: I get to choose how to birth my baby. I have a right to birth in a hospital, or a birthing center, or at home. I have a right to have a midwife, and a doula, if I want them. Makes sense, no?


Women need to be informed about their choices, what options they have when they birth. They need to know the risks of epidurals, episiotomies, and whether or not these are actually necessary (or desirable). They have a right to have an IBCLC available to help with any breastfeeding issues.


As I saw tweeted the other day, "Pro-choice" and "Trust Women" doesn't just apply to abortion -- it damn well applies to birth, too. The problem is that the conversation is so often derailed into "UR A MURDERERRR!!!" by the pro-"life" side so we don't get to talk about any real issues, we just spend our time pointing out their lies and fallacies.


Most women who have had an abortion either already have children or will have them in the future (when they're ready). "Women who have an abortion" and "women who have a baby" are not two separate groups. They're a Venn diagram, with a huge overlap in the middle.


We want the same thing: respect for women when it comes to their bodies. When and how to be pregnant. When and how to birth. When and how to feed their children.


Yesterday I saw the Ronald Reagan quote about how "everyone who is for abortion has already been born." I've seen it before, and ignored it, because it's a stupid quote pretending to be "clever." Unborn entities don't have opinions, so they can't be "for" (or against) anything. Plenty of people who have "already been born" wish they had not. Oftentimes they commit suicide. Or they turn to drugs or alcohol to dull the pain of living.

And plenty more of us would not have cared if we'd been aborted. You know why? BECAUSE FETUSES DON'T HAVE COGNITIVE PROCESSES OR THE ABILITY TO CARE.


The quote was not blog-post-worthy. What was, was where I saw it: I saw this quote on a birthing rights community page.


Those same women who are appalled that a doctor would force a C-section on a woman... are saying it's okay to force an entire pregnancy on her??


Here's my (first) response:


I'm surprised to see an anti-abortion statement posted today, when yesterday there was a question from a mom about doing a D&C for a molar pregnancy. I still don't know what a molar pregnancy is (haven't had time to Google it), but I know what a D&C is. It's one method of terminating a pregnancy (usually done in the second trimester, if I recall correctly). I had one, when I was faced with an unwanted pregnancy, just over a decade ago. 

I have seen other posts (don't think it was on this page, but on another parenting/birthing-rights page) about moms seeking advice about a D&C after a miscarriage or stillbirth (to make sure all the tissue is actually out of the body, to prevent infection and/or other complications).

There are a bazillion different reasons why a woman may need to terminate a pregnancy. Sometimes it's because she's not ready to be a mother. Sometimes it's because she's not capable of being a mother -- financially, or mentally/emotionally, or physically. Sometimes it's because something is wrong with the pregnancy or the fetus -- like an ectopic or molar pregnancy. Sometimes it's because the fetus is already dead, but her body hasn't miscarried properly and removed all the tissue. I'm not and obstetrician, so I can't even begin to list all the medical reasons for an abortion.

Whatever that woman's reason is, SHE knows what's best for her. It's her body. She also knows what is best for that potential child -- deciding whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is the first parenting decision a woman makes. Please respect her choice.

Just like a doctor doesn't have the right to force a woman to have a c-section if she doesn't want one, no one has a right to force a woman to have a pregnancy if she doesn't -- or can't -- want it.

One of the reasons the women who posted here and on other pages asking for advice on whether they should have a D&C for a doomed (or already terminated) pregnancy is because abortion has been so demonized in our society. It's a medical procedure. A necessary one. No woman makes the decision to abort a pregnancy lightly -- and any woman who would, is not apt for or perhaps capable of motherhood. Motherhood begins with pregnancy.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions that happen because of unwanted pregnancies, call your legislators and tell them to fund Planned Parenthood. Tell them to make birth control fully covered by insurance. Tell them to make hospitals stock emergency contraception in the ER for rape victims. Call your school board and your legislators and make comprehensive sex ed mandatory curriculum starting in middle school.

But don't criminalize or demonize abortion. You don't know that woman's story. You can't imagine what SHE is going through, because you are not her and you have not lived her life or survived the trauma that may be leading her to make that decision -- even for a very wanted pregnancy.


--


I went back and wrote some more comments (in response to one particularly rabid anti-choicer), which I may post here as their own mini-blogs, or I may dump in the comments here. Haven't decided yet.

But right now, my baby's calling me.


Tweet

Apple Dumplings by Virginia Howes

Because my funbags are food bags for my funny bug: (thanks to Arwyn at Raising my Boychick for the link)

Tweet

"Selling" breast milk

From the weekly Our365 email I get about my baby's development (courtesy of the people who took newborn photos in the hospital):

Yes, of course. You'd find it right next to the gallons of blood and sperm.

First of all, we don't package and sell breast milk as if it were, say cow's milk. It's distributed by donor milk banks, you know, same as we do with blood. And sperm. 

Because there are so few donor banks (and the requirements are so strict -- I can't donate milk because I'm on antidepressants that are safe to take while nursing, but those meds prohibit me from donating), and because the fees to use donated milk are so steep and insurance companies put so many restrictions on who is "worthy" of receiving the little human milk there is available, some moms contribute to programs like Eats on Feets, or share their milk informally with a mom friend in need.

Yes, there have been instances of moms asking for a fee for this service (I don't have any links, but I saw people asking about it on one of the birth/parenting Facebook pages I follow, so it must have happened, at least once...), but it's not a money-making business, as Kristina C. makes it sound. It's "donating breast milk," not "selling" it.

And, Kristina C., if you're going to use an analogy... well... use the analogy. We donate and distribute human breast milk same as we do human blood or sperm: through banks, with medical screenings, and you must apply to receive the product. We don't sell blood or sperm at Stop & Shop either, so if your child is bleeding out after a car wreck, are you going to refuse the blood transfusion that could save hir life?

Birth Control Injection For Men

OK, I admit I did not read the WHOLE article (it's long, and I have a baby stirring in his basket, he's about to wake up and my Internetz time will be up); I saw something on Twitter or Facebook about this the other day, but that article seemed wonky, and I couldn't tell if it was a joke or not. This article has, like, sciency-talk in it and stuff.

If this is for real, then... DUDE.

If it IS 100% effective, and reversible, then... DAMN. MonkeyBoy will be strongly encouraged to get this injection when he's 13. He can reverse it when he's ready to have kids, if he and his partner choose to make babies.

And speaking of, he's awake. So I'll leave you with the article: The Revolutionary New Birth Control Method For Men. Go read, be amazed, get excited, and find that doctor in San Francisco who wants to bring this to the FDA. Let's make this happen! Soon!!

"About half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned. Come up with a better contraceptive and the likely results are all good: fewer unwanted kids, fewer single parents, and fewer abortions."

Switching to condoms...

You can see the rest of these here, but the best one by far is this one:

Tweet

Star Wars and Women

Why 'Star Wars' Is Secretly Terrifying for Women -- powered by Cracked.com

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

Hungerfast.org