The Run Around

The collective was formed, the funds raised, and the training scheduled.  All the Spectrum Doula Collective needed, then, was a clinic to work in. 

There enlies the problem.  Although there are many abortion providers in the central-NC area, very few are willing to open their doors to our version of doula support.  One clinic manager in particular told one of our members that they "don't bring in outsiders to do [their] jobs." 

I cannot get upset by the obvious anxiety clinic workers feel when approached by someone who is, let's face it, an outsider.  Decades of threats, picketing, harassment, vandalism, anthrax attacks, bombings, arson, and shootings have shaped the way the American abortion clinic has to operate by necessity.  They can't just open up their doors to each request for volunteers: to do so could very well open a clinic up to all kinds of infiltration, breach of client confidentiality, or worse.  It makes sense that medical care providers in general would be uneasy about perfect strangers entering their most confidential areas, and the nature of abortion itself compounds these worries astronomically. 

However, I can't shake this idea that the abortion doula would be "doing the jobs" of clinic workers.  This is something that birth doulas have to face when working in a hospital environment.  Though my personal experience working with hospital staff has been overwhelmingly positive, there is a kind of unresolved idea that doulas accompany women who don't believe they would otherwise be taken care of.  Some labor and delivery nurses harbor contempt for the doula, as if the doula is there to "correct" whatever care the nurse is there to provide.  Though the duties of the labor and delivery nurse are completely out of the doula's scope of practice, this remains one of the most common myths about doulas.  (This is not to say there aren't some "bad eggs" out there who mess with the Pitocin drip, adjust and read fetal heart monitors, even perform vaginal exams!  This is indeed not the job of the doula, and any doula who performs such a task indeed be censured by her certifying organization.)

There's something to be said for the fact that both clinics that have seemed receptive to our project proposal are manged by those with a history in labor and delivery.  These are people who have worked with doulas before, and they have both had good things to say about the profession.  If only they could let their colleagues in other clinics know what we do and do not do!

Even if we did make it abundantly clear what the abortion doula does and does not do, however, I believe we would still be getting some amount of push-back from clinicians.  After all, what are we implying by offering emotional support to their clients?  Are we saying they don't do enough of it themselves?  Are we charging them with being unsympathetic?  Most of all, are we co-opting the belief of the anti-choice camp that abortion will always be an emotionally-trying experience??

Granted nothing is further from the truth.  Our core values state that we respect and value the protection of clinics and their staff members.  We have not (and will not) ever suggest that any clinic has failed to provide quality care to its patients without witnessing it firsthand.  However, even the woman who is most confident in the abilities of her obstetrician/midwife and nursing staff might desire the non-medical support of a birth doula.  Such would not be an indictment of her care provider's failure; on the contrary, this woman might simply desire something that doctors, midwives, and nurses are either not trained or unable to provide.  This is hardly a charge of neglect or bad health care: many families see birth as a process that, while decidedly medical in some respects, can run more smoothly when a trained support person accompanies the entire labor period. 

I hope we can convey to our community's clinics that volunteer abortion doulas can enhance, not replace, the care given by providers and staff members.  It truly takes a spectrum of expertise to work with the average abortion patient: there's the first contact, the options counselor, the nurses, the doctor, and anyone who provides comfort and after-care instructions in recovery.  Adding a volunteer who is specifically trained to provide support and nothing but support can only enhance the work provided by the team of clinicians.  Additionally, the unfortunate fact that many clinics in this country are under-staffed and over-worked means that the average clinic worker can only provide so much support to each individual patient.  This is not a charge of their ability to provide such support, however; it is a charge against those who have made one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the U.S. into an event riddled with silence, stigma, and shame.  And I guess really, that's the whole problem.

omg

I'll let Invader Zim explain how I feel...



Seriously though, I can't fathom what's going on with my back.  Maybe the interwebz can help me figure out what's going on.

It started last week.  The weather had been so dry that my hands were cracky.  However, my decision to use a whole bunch of hand lotion right before bed proved to be a bad idea the following morning at yoga.  Every downward-facing dog, I was slipping and sliding.  In an attempt to "suck it up" and press through regardless (not very yoga, I know), I dealt with it the way my years of dance training taught me to: muscle through.

Not very comfortable, no.  But downdog isn't all rest, right?  I figured it would help engage my upper body a bit more.  However, I found I was using my back more than anything.  And in a weird way, at that.

Long story short, ever since that morning I've had soreness, inflammation, and a lot of discomfort right around my thoracic curve.  It's bad enough to make sitting still difficult for longer periods of time (my 3-hour class today was rough), and it seems to be getting worse.  It's a strange pain... sort of like that tension you feel right before your back pops, but mine won't pop (and I've aggravated it more by trying).  Ice feels good, so does heat, but it won't go away.  It's not particularly sharp, more of a dull ache, but an ache that, again, seems to be getting worse.

I should see a chiropractor, huh?

Beyond Roe

Thoughts on the Roe v. Wade anniversary, 1/22/11.

In the world before Roe, women fronted hundreds of dollars for a perfect stranger (maybe a doctor, maybe not) to terminate their pregnancies.  They risked their lives to secure such a service, never knowing if the provider had proper training, if the abortion would work, or if they would end up bleeding to death in a hotel room.  Some women entered the makeshift "procedure room" only to be raped and left behind, still pregnant and hundreds of dollars poorer.  Still others, those who could not afford even the sketchiest of abortions, took matters into their own hands, ingesting toxic chemicals and using sharp metal instruments such as the now-emblematic coat hanger.  In some areas, groups like the Jane Collective and Judson Memorial Church helped to link women with legitimate (albeit illegal) providers who were known to be safe.  Women who could work it out traveled to Chicago and New York City, respectively, to utilize such services.

The attacks on legal abortion started almost immediately after the procedure was legalized nationwide in 1973, and these attacks continue today.  While we fight with everything we have to preserve Roe, we mustn't forget that the Supreme Court ruling itself never really guaranteed the most important detail: access.

Today, lower income women occupy a complex place: while they are statistically less likely to have access to contraception and are therefore more likely to experience an unintended pregnancy, legislative barriers such as the 1977 Hyde Amendment mean that their access to abortion is severely diminished.  While Medicaid will front the $8000+ bill for basic prenatal care and hospital birth costs, our medical system remains unwilling to offer women the several hundred dollars for an abortion.  These restrictions are upheld by "fiscal conservatives" who ramble on about lower-income women, predominately women of color, being a "drain on society" while simultaneously restricting key prevention options.  Anti-choice groups, inseparable from their "fiscal conservative" friends, claim abortion clinics target women of color specifically as part of some sort of eugenics conspiracy, all the while doing nothing to increase reproductive autonomy in lower-income communities.

Congress reaffirmed the federal ban on abortion funding in last year's "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," which, if repealed, will be replaced by even stricter guidelines on abortion coverage.  This does not, of course, curb the rates of abortion in America.  Women will sacrifice groceries, electricity, even rent money to save up for an abortion, and the more time this takes, the more invasive and expensive the procedure will become; reproductive rights advocates refer to this as "chasing the fee."

It's not just financial barriers that limit accessibility.  According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, 87% of U.S. counties currently lack an abortion provider, and with good reason: why would a doctor want to provide a service that could very well lead to attacks by violent anti-choice groups? 88% of US-based abortion clinics have reported at least one form of harassment by anti-choice forces, and nearly one in five clinics has received at least one bomb threat.  And with more restrictive legislative barriers being passed each year, it's no wonder so many clinics are forced to close their doors forever.  Some states, such as North Dakota or Nebraska, have only one or two clinics serving the entire region.  These clinics are generally over-booked, under-funded, and under-staffed, placing very unfortunate compromises on the quality of individual care that a woman may receive.  Many women who have had abortions in these areas compare it to being moved through an assembly line.  Women who must travel great lengths to secure an abortion appointment must take more time off from work and possibly pay high childcare bills for the kids they already have.

There is, then, a whole class of women who will not be able to secure a legal abortion at all, even though they technically have the legal right to do so.  For these women, it's like Roe never happened.  Many procure misoprostol, a drug which, when taken with mifeprex, can terminate an early pregnancy safely, provided the woman is under the care of a physician.  Taken alone and without the supervision of a medical care provider, however, the results can be devastating. 

Still others will not induce abortions with pills received from sketchy international pharmacies.  Some women will indeed find a surgical abortion provider for cheap.  However, if not properly informed they could end up in the hands of someone like Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a man who was recently charged with murder for the deaths of one woman and seven newborn babies at a rogue "clinic" in West Philadelphia.  Gosnell was in fact not a licensed abortion provider, and the stories coming from his now-closed "clinic" are horrific.  Still, women went to him.  And why wouldn't they?  Gosnell was the cheapest game in town, located right in the neighborhood for many lower-income women who needed an affordable abortion.  Indeed, the Gosnell case is a stark reminder that, for many women, the days of back-alley butcheries are for from behind us.

If abortion services were not so stigmatized, if the procedure itself was not so mystified and fraught with silence and shame, and if financial and geographical access were not so profoundly limited, no one would ever visit a place like Gosnell's back-alley butchery.  We cannot simply shun the Gosnell case, recount statistics about the safety practices of licensed abortion facilities, and parade around with images of nicely done-up clinics where private-pay clients receive decent care.  Not, at least, without asking ourselves why Gosnell was in business in the first place.  Monster or not, Gosnell was providing a service that many women obviously needed, and it is up to every one of us to work beyond the limits of Roe to ensure, for each and every woman and girl, complete autonomy over our bodies, our sexualities, and our lives.

Toddler Nursing in America

American society has this strange relationship with breastfeeding.  By which I mean, while we're supposedely a "medically advanced" nation where breastfeeding is actively promoted by many health care professionals, we're also a capitalist nation where the breasts are commodified for the pleasure of the dominant gaze.

We tend to be 100% pro-breastfeeding in concept, but once a woman oversteps her bounds, leaving the home only to take the breast out to feed the baby in public, we flip out: "Couldn't she have prepared a bottle ahead of time?" "She should put a blanket over her baby's head!" "Why doesn't she formula-feed while in public, then breastfeed at home?" "I don't need to see that!"

Our societal "support" for breastfeeding indeed has its limits, and nowhere is this as clear as everybody's favorite, the time limit.  Even though the World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding beyond infancy and well into the toddler years, I guess the United States is just beyond all that.

For some reason, women who breastfeed older babies and toddlers are always making the news.  From the mother's perspective, I suppose the press is a good way to raise awareness of toddler nursing, the reasons some women might forgo weaning for a while, the reasons their children like to breastfeed, etc.  But the news never seems to use their story in such a way; indeed, women who breastfeed toddlers are "extreme," they are "anomalies," and therefore, they are news-worthy.  They legitimize their stance by bringing in specialists to weigh in:

"Child psychologist Will Braun told ABC News, 'I think a child really needs to learn to develop the capacity to soothe oneself, the capacity to tolerate frustration.  When a child is constantly given a breast, it might thwart that from happening.'"

Yes, small children need to be taught to buck up and get over it.  Never mind that most crying children would receive breast-free condolences from their parents anyway... children who need soothing are going to be robbed of learning the American Way: pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and don't ever rely on anyone else for help (that shows weakness).

And of course, where would the modern day news media be without the comments section? The Peanut Gallery always has something to say, especially when it comes to women's health.  So as you can imagine, a story relating to toddlers breastfeeding is pure gold.  Some of my favorites:

• "These kids are getting robbed of nutrition!  When are they going to learn to eat grown-up food?  That can't be good for them."
• "Oh my god, those poor children are going to be so messed up!"
• "Time to cut the cord, lady!"
• "So self-serving, [featured mother] is not doing her kids any favors by stunting their development like that."
• "I would not let my child have a friend who was still nursing!"
• "This woman is abusing these kids.  She should be locked up for child abuse."

 I noticed first that several comments show a complete lack of understanding about what, exactly, is involved with toddler nursing (or breastfeeding in general).  So I'll break it down real fast:

• Older infants and toddlers get both breastmilk and solid food.  In fact, most babies (hopefully) will have a period of time where they are still breast- or formula-fed and are starting to eat solid foods.  This is how many babies are weaned, by slowly replacing breastmilk with grown-up food.  A woman who still breastfeeds her toddlers is not exclusively breastfeeding.  That's ridiculous.
• A woman who breastfeeds a toddler is not doing it for wholly nutritious reasons.  While extended breastfeeding does in fact help to continue to fight off allergies and infections as the baby grows, for most children nursing is about being soothed, bonding with Mommy, and getting ready for bed.  It is possible to have benefits that can't be quantified in some study, you know.
• Toddler nursing does not stunt a child's development by somehow "locking them into infancy."  In fact, breastfeeding for longer is associated with better social skills and trust of others as the child grows up. 

But what's most troubling here are the accusations of "abuse," of "messing the child up" as s/he grows and develops with access to the breast.  Once again, these comments exhibit a complete lack of understanding about social use vs. biological use.  The breasts are not inherently sexual, especially to a child who has only ever seen the them as a soothing, warm way to eat and bond.  Why is breastfeeding a three year-old any more "sexual abuse" than breastfeeding a baby who's only just been born? 

When it comes to women's issues, especially when it comes to pregnancy and mothering, time and time again we see that other people think they know best.  A woman who enjoys one glass of wine during pregnancy is "selfish."  A woman who formula-feeds her newborn is "risking their health" regardless of what led her to that choice.  A woman who breastfeeds her older baby is "abusing them."  Women whose babies cry in public need to feed them right away, but not from the breast, or at least not without throwing a blanket over the baby's head.  Women always need to do something different, personal desires be damned, for the sake of a baby that society will simultaneously take and not take responsibility for.

It all comes back to our fickle acceptance of breastfeeding.  We know the benefits, we accept that it's something women might do for a short period of time, but we don't want to think about it or see it.  We know it's best for the baby, but we don't want the baby to ever remember doing it.  We can't have babies growing up to not think of the breasts as inherently sexual; no, there's millions lost there.  Besides, where would our breast cancer campaigns be without booby jokes?! 

Ex-Dancer

It has now been five months since I either took or taught a dance class.  To be sure, it was a long time coming, but being ejected in the last possible minute from my instructor position threw me into a space I never thought I would occupy.

Ever since I was three, I was a dancer.  I never considered myself a person who took dance lessons as a hobby... for as long as I can remember, my whole identity was enveloped in that of a dancer's.  I started taking two or more classes per week at age 7, entering a student company at 8, and it went from there.

From the days at Ruth Mitchell's, to my three-year tenure at the Georgia Ballet, to collegiate studies, some brief professional stints as a performer and choreographer, and finally, as an instructor, I have been a dancer.  But that's all done now.

I say this now because I received a call today from a studio that wanted me to sub for them, but I declined.  A couple of weeks ago, Jan Van Dyke taught a week-long intensive at the Cultural Arts Center, but I opted not to register.  This is all very new to me.

To date, I have the impulse to bust into a full-safety at the mere mention of Godspeed You! Black Emperor, the drive to attempt fouette turns when I hear the coda from Don Quixote, and still a burning desire to create the many choreographic works I have been envisioning since I was a kid.

And yet, I am strangely at peace knowing I will likely never do any of those things again, at least not in a formal setting.  Today, I do the "doula hula" instead of rond de jambes.  I prop up breastfeeding moms with pillows and blankets instead of propping up myself in pointe shoes.  My main contact with the earth is in my yoga practice, peacefully gaining a full chaturanga instead of forcing myself through ten or fifteen sets of side hook-arm leg swings.  And while I miss the lot of it, I can say with confidence that my present journey is not supposed to involve a dancer's identity.

Don't get me wrong, I have not abandoned anything.  Whatever I have done up to this point has brought me to the place I am now, so I know that on some level dance led me to what I do today.  Dance is permanently imprinted in my body through the hours and endless hours I have given it, and it will remain there for as long as I live.  

It's difficult, still.  I was always so sure I would just do it forever.  I never thought I would be famous or great; I never even thought I would be able to sustain myself through dance alone.  But on some level, I thought I would be dancing forever.  But I'm not.  And that's okay.

There might come a time when I'm inspired to reenter the dance studio.  I might again feel the skin on my feet splitting apart, mend swollen tendons and bruised knees.  I might one day look down at my feet, covered in floor burns, and say, "Goddamn that's badass!"  If that day comes, I will welcome it with open arms.  But for now, to the dance world, I bid you the fondest of farewells!

Rep. Giffords, Violence, and Moral Culpability

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona, I believe another discussion of violent rhetoric is in order. 

First off: no one is saying that Sarah Palin, Jesse Kelly, or the Tea Party Movement pulled the trigger.  No one is demanding these people be found guilty of any legal wrongdoing.  We are not blaming the act, in its entirety, on anything said by Glenn Beck or another Fox News talking head.  Though, I'm sure the above people/organizations will find a way to spin it so that it sounds like we are accusing them of such, just like Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that pro-choice groups said he was responsible for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller in 2009. They will claim that we are "exploiting the tragedy" for "political gain," that we are just looking for a new way to demonize the all-powerful Tea Party Movement, all the while excusing themselves 100% from believing that anything they have said or done could have helped to foster an environment where someone would commit such an act.

No, Sarah Palin did not necessarily say "go shoot someone" with her crosshairs map.  Jesse Kelly did not technically endorse gunning down Rep. Giffords when he said "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office ... Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."  Glenn Beck has not been endorsing actual gun violence with his continued rhetoric of "taking back the government by force."  Not a single one of these individuals ran up to Giffords and pulled the trigger, nor did they personally put Loughner up to the task.  But that doesn't mean they have not helped to cultivate an environment where something like this could happen.  Does it mean they are legally liable and should be charged as accessories to murder?  No.  Does it mean they should be taken to task for their role in fostering such an environment through continued violent and inflammatory rhetoric?  Absolutely.

We must be guarded when we use phrases like "isolated incident," as in truth there is no such thing.  Each and every individual, especially those who would go so far beyond the customary range of human behavior, acts in response to social cues.  Not one of us lives in a vacuum free from societal influence, and while we cannot (and will not) claim that Sarah Palin is legally liable for Sunday's shooting, we can (and must) discuss the concept of moral culpability.

It is indeed an "ultra-liberal" way of thinking, though I shutter to use the L word here.  Indeed, it is a manner of thinking that leads us to ask why the high school drop-out robbed the convenience store, why the single mother sold her body for cash, why the student drugged and raped his date, and of course, why the young man unloaded an automatic weapon at an Arizona constituents event.  The answers give us some insight into the wrongdoer's life, giving us a bit of sympathy for their situation, if only for a moment.

In turn, we are labeled "bleeding-heart" and "soft on crime."  However, nothing could be further from the truth: while we ask why, we don't do it to excuse the crime itself.  We ask these questions because we know that there is no such thing as an "isolated incident."  We ask because we know that there will be others in the same situation, and those others are going to be inclined to behave in a similar manner.  We ask because we know that we as a society can do better, because we're not prepared to believe that some people are "just bad eggs." 

To say that some are "just bad eggs" is like saying "girls just like pink," or "boys just like toy cars."  We know that's bullshit, that girls like pink and boys like cars because they're told to, and that their budding preferences are reinforced by parents, television, friends, etc.  The same goes for people like Loughner, people who might already be "unstable" and frustrated, and then just need to interpret an influential figure's words as the go-ahead for violence.  This is something the Palins of the world don't seem to have figured out, or at least don't want to admit: actions have consequences.

It is never okay to use violent rhetoric against another person, no matter how innocuous it may seem.  This is all very easily spun as "they think Palin caused the shooting," but whatever.  I would rather be a "bleeding-heart" who asks why than the kind of person who incites violence then turns the other way when something tragic happens.

Last Night's Nums: Pesto Alla Trapanese

...or, Pesto with Tomatoes and Almonds.

This is yet another gem from the glorious pages of Cooks Illustrated.  Don't let the marinara-like appearance fool you: this is indeed pesto.  "Pesto alla trapanese" refers the Sicilian village of Trapani, where pesto is made with tomatoes in addition to basil, and with toasted almonds instead of pine nuts.  The result is robust and delicious: both savory and fruity with a little kick.

I'll start by saying that this recipe gets a bit expensive in the winter, as grape tomatoes aren't readily available from anywhere nearby.  This is not a recipe that you localvores could swing this time of year.  Though, I'm planning on having a grape tomato plant this summer, then making huge quantities of this sauce to freeze.  It's that good.

I tend to leave recipes from "the test kitchen" untouched... there's very little room for improvement with the bulk of their recipes!  However, there are some minor adjustments in my version based on personal preference.

You most certainly will need a food processor for this dish.  Which you should have anyway; it's one of the best investments for a cooking enthusiast. 


Pesto Alla Trapanese

¼ cup slivered almonds (I buy them pre-slivered, but if you buy them whole with the skins on, you need to remove the skins by blanching them for 2 minutes)
12 oz grape tomatoes, sliced in half*
½ cup packed fresh basil, coarsely chopped
2 large garlic cloves, pressed
1/3 cup extra-virgin olive oil
½ cup Parmesan cheese
1 tsp red wine vinegar
½ tsp red pepper flakes**

1.    Toast almonds in small skillet over medium heat, stirring frequently, until pale golden and fragrant, 2-4 minutes.  Cool almonds to room temperature.
2.    Process cooled almonds, tomatoes, basil, garlic, red pepper flakes, vinegar, and 1 tsp salt until smooth, about 1 minute.  Scrape down sides of bowl with rubber spatula.  With machine running, slowly drizzle in oil, about 30 seconds. 
3.    Add sauce and ½ cup Parmesan cheese to 1lb cooked pasta.  Serve immediately.

* Cherry tomatoes can be used, but we like the flavor of grape tomatoes better.  Still, this time of year cherry tomatoes seem to be a bit less expensive and are also good.
** I have used up to 1 teaspoon of red pepper flakes, which was the perfect amount for a spicy (less fruity) sauce.  It's important to remember that a few red pepper flakes go a long way.

Other notes: I like linguine for this dish, as recommended by Cooks Illustrated.  I can imagine one pound of any other pasta would also work well, however, the sauce coats and sticks to the long, flat noodles very well.  Cook's Illustrated also recommends reserving 1/2 cup cooking water from the pasta for adjusting the consistency of the sauce if it doesn't spread easily enough.  I've never had this problem, as it always comes out just right.

Also notice that, like all traditional pesto, the sauce itself is never cooked, though it does heat through with the pasta.  If you're not a fan of the mostly-raw garlic flavor of traditional pesto, simply cut the garlic to one clove.

Enjoy!

Newsflash: Kids are sexual beings

I'm sure it's some facet of human nature to jump to conclusions.  No where is this more apparent than in the mainstream perception of the American Teenager.

Think about it: from the perspective of someone who gets all their perceptions from Oprah, 60 Minutes, and a load of segments on both local and national news, the American teenager is a walking moral crisis.  Drugs, sex, pregnancy, and low self esteem are staples of your News Hour Special on what could very well be your teen.  So freak out already!!  (Anyone remember the "rainbow parties" trend that all teen girls were apparently taking part in?  Oh yeah.)

None of this is to say we do not have something of a crisis on our hands when it comes to teenagers having unsafe sex and using dangerous drugs.  The lack of decent sex education, paired with a compulsory "sex is bad" mentality, has led many American teenagers to engage in sexual relationships before they're ready.  Add to this the fact that many young people lack the knowledge to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs, and yeah, we got ourselves a problem.

However, your average sexually-active teenager is not Jessi Slaughter.  They are not drug fiends, they are not sleeping with a new partner every week, and they are not a part of some "epidemic of immorality" that needs to be remedied with even more repressive stigmas against one's own body.

I'll say this bluntly: kids, even young children, are sexual beings.  They have impulses that are normal, natural, and valid.  This is something that I'm sure I'll have more trouble saying when I have a little one of my own, but every parent needs to come to terms with this fact.  No amount of Bill O'Reilly ranting about how he had a baseball mitt and not a girlfriend at age 16 can adequately challenge our nature as human beings, nor can it effectively remedy the trend of many teens engaging in risky sexual activity.

When feminists speak out against the sexualization of young girls, we are often lumped in with puritanical movements that are basically just anti-sex.  The "Parents Television Council" comes to mind.  However, unlike the PTC and others, feminists decry media efforts at imposing sexuality on young girls while still supporting a young woman's right to become a sexual being in her own right and on her own terms.

And of course, it's this positive outlook on sexuality, the right to be sexual in one's own right, that is apparently to blame for the supposed epidemic of teen girls getting their freak on at age 11.  And not, you know, a continued culture of attacks on women's bodies, the commodification of younger and younger girls as sexual objects, and a busload of dehumanizing clothes and music produced solely to make a buck.  To be sure, it is easier to blame the very non-mainstream idea that women own their bodies than to take on an entire culture of consumerism, especially when we're taught from day one that such a culture is "what makes this country great."  And besides, there's just no money in women and girls feeling content with their bodies and their wardrobes. 

All of this is to say that I read a great piece by the always-wonderful Heather Corinna.  A sex educator, Corinna's website Scarleteen is geared towards young people, providing insight and education on safe sex, peer pressure, relationships, self esteem, and other relevant topics. 

Her piece at RH Reality Check specifically addressed the things parents can do to help their kids to develop into healthy, educated, and informed sexual beings.  Have a read here.

While parents may (and absolutely should) insert their personal values into their household sex education curriculum, Corinna's list contains several concepts that even the most progressive parents may not think to include:

•  "Encourage active consenting and sexual boundaries" -- This is bound to be one of those difficult topics for parents to broach with their kids, as it forces them to admit that their kids are, in fact, sexual beings.  However, simply stating "don't do it unless you want to" and "be sure to use a condom" is probably not going to adequately inform a teenager about the limits of consent.  And if the confusion over what, exactly, Julian Assange is being accused of is any indication, we could all use a refresher course in consent.
• "Help counter sexualization and stereotyping" -- Again, simply reasserting your values or telling kids how to protect themselves against pregnancy/STDs is not going to cut it.  Teenagers live in a world bigger than their house... their school's social politics, television programs, messages in music, and the clothes they're encouraged to don all play a huge role in the sexual landscape teenagers are trying to map out.  If parents want their children to make truly informed decisions, they need to be ready to offer a perspective on this complex landscape. 
• "Dump 'The Sex Talk'" -- This was a new idea to me!  Instead of the awkward, "son/daughter, we need to talk" moments, Corinna suggests parents simply insert messages on positive sexuality into day-to-day childrearing, starting as young as the child can understand.  I can imagine this involves being straight about where babies come from (come on, people... the stork?!), short-but-sweet discussions on masturbation and privacy, and passing comments that reiterate messages about positive sexuality.  Always remembering, of course, that no amount of "you can talk to me about anything" comments will necessarily make the kid comfortable just showing up to ask a question.
• "Support outside help" -- The single most problematic trend in the politics of sex ed is parents distrust of other people educating their children about sexuality.  While we may trust others to educate our kids on things like nutrition and fitness(except Sarah Palin, of course), we simply cannot fathom that another person, possibly a perfect stranger, may know more about sex than we do.  Of course, while some parents may be very well-informed about their own sexual identities, it is highly unlikely that a teen will make the exact same choices as her/his parents.  S/he may be attracted to the same gender, s/he may choose to begin a sexual relationship earlier or later than the parents, or s/he might just have a completely different set of questions.  Or, {gasp!}, s/he might just not want to discuss certain topics with her/his parents!  Trusting that trained professionals can answer questions in those "I don't know" moments should put a parent's mind at ease, not cause a panic over whether or not the educator is going to tell your kid to run off and screw the next thing that moves.  And again, if personal values are reiterated in the home, the (very basic) factoids a kid learns in school are not about to negate them. 

 Now if I can maintain this credo when I have little ones of my own,  we'll be in business.

Zero Tolerance Zone

Instead of "new year's resolutions," I've decided to simply compile a list of five things I resolve to not tolerate this year, mostly for my personal sanity.

This isn't a list of "bad -isms."  I haven't ever tolerated sexism, racism, classism, bodyism, etc, at least not in recent memory.  And while I could certainly make one of these about people and concepts that fuel the fires of said -isms, I blog enough about those to already have a pretty clear picture of how I will/will not tolerate such activities.

This is for myself, for clarity.  I am not trying to attack any individual, at least not one that's likely to know about and subsequently read this blog.  I am certainly not trying to accuse or attack any friends of mine; perhaps I have some constructive criticisms regarding the way we treat social issues, but that is in no way intended to be an attack.

So here they are... things I will not be tolerating in the coming year:

1) Anti-Birth Sentiment, Militant Child-Free Folks, and the Overpopulation Brigade.
This refers to so-called "pro-choice" individuals who oppose a person's right to carry a pregnancy to term, whether it was planned or not, and to birth without stigma.  This includes folks who might otherwise be considering abortion: maybe they are in high school, are putting their big dreams on hold due to the pregnancy/baby, people who may have a substance abuse problem, single women, etc.  I am including here my belief that pregnant people have the right to call the pregnancy what they want without being "corrected." You're not pro-choice if you don't believe in the right to explore all options, and you're doing the movement a grave disservice by assuming women might be "caving" to anti-choice pressure when they decide against abortion.

2) The Holier-Than-Thou Radicals
As an activist, I think I've been pretty lucky to have encountered very few of this type, and have never organized alongside one directly.  But you see them... at marches, rallies, in fleeting appearances at meetings (only when they show up to say they won't be attending your meetings because you're "too reformist").  They don't ever really organize... they just criticize.  They won't work with people with even slightly different views or methodologies, and they seem to only exist to denounce the efforts of organizers who are actually doing something.  Come to think of it, I've never really tolerated this type, but I wanted to make it clear.

3) Undeserved Total Denouncement
Now here I actually am speaking about a number of people I have worked alongside, people I consider to be friends, and people I respect in many other ways.  The foremost example that comes to mind is Jon Stewart.  While there were issues with the Daily Show's Sanity Rally, I have said that, while it didn't stand for everything, it also did not stand for nothing.  No, Jon Stewart is not a champion of social justice movements, he doesn't stand for deviation from the status quo, and he's not likely to solely build a productive movement to counter all the BS we're in right now.  Nor does he claim to be.

That being said, as a person and commentator, Jon Stewart does not deserve to be completely written off.  I feel like a lot of people have chosen to do so, citing the obvious problems in his ideology (an ideology he does not claim to be revolutionary, by the way).  However, if there is one figure in popular culture capable of reaching an entire generation of left-leaning young people, it's Jon Stewart.  Not only that, but the way he and the Daily Show's staff takes to task our political system, the media cycle, and the need for discontent in both should not be completely shunned or denounced.  In his outlet, he asks some tough questions, he points out hypocrisy, and he actively promotes critical thought.  That is nothing to ignore, even if we may have deeper ideological differences.

Jon Stewart is not the only one who has had undeserved total denouncement thrown at him from the Left.  And I believe that is unfortunate: you are unlikely to find popular figures who are 100% on board with your beliefs, and if someone comes up who promotes dissent in a forum that speaks to a large number of left-leaners, you can't just write them off point-blank.  A discussion of your ideological differences can then ensue, and so long as you don't make it stand-offish or aggressive, you can probably get a pretty good rapport going with a wider base of people. 

4) Defense of Julian Assange
I've said it before: Assange is not WikiLeaks.  We should defend WikiLeaks and its right to exist.  However, as the evidence mounts against Assange, and as Assange shows his true colors, no movement that claims to be anti-sexist can ignore the very serious actions Assange is being accused of.  And yet, so many liberals and Leftists alike seem to be doing it, from mainstream Keith Olbermann to activist Jennifer Van Bergen. And while both simultaneously give lip-service to the denouncement of rape during their defense of Assange, their framing of the Assange situation continues to put the rape allegations on the backburner, continuing the centuries-long trend of treating sexual assault as a conditional offense.

I'll just say this: the media and world governments want us to link WikiLeaks and Assange inextricably.  But they are different.  WikiLeaks may have been founded by Assange, but it can continue without him.  You can denounce Assange as a person while defending WikiLeaks.  It is imperative that we do so.

5) Method Elitism
There was a time when I railed against those who worked primarily in everyday actions.  By which I mean, folks who don't organize mass movements or attend every single rally, but instead live their lives as a person who changes the world on a person-by-person basis.

After meeting some amazing people who work 60+ hours a week toward the same ends as my organizing, I realize this form of activism has a place.  Not only does it have a place... it is an integral facet of our very diverse movement.  These are not people who sold out and stepped down to a gig in the nonprofit industrial complex; these are people whose gift is in the individual, the every day.  These are folks who change the world daily, maybe in a nonprofit, maybe just in their personal lives.  I've learned that this is a respectable form of activism, and in fact one I have recently decided to try out for myself.  These folks haven't given up on their ideals; they have just found new ways to implement them through total embodiment. 


Now to clarify what I mean by "will not tolerate."  When we hear someone will not tolerate something, we think of aggression and severed ties.  When I say it, though, I mean quite the opposite: I will not lash out, I will not become aggressive, and I will not be unforgiving.  Taking things inward over the past few months has taught me that it is possible to be at peace with the world as it is while still fighting for much-needed change.  But I know I cannot simply stay quiet when these things come up.  That would be me being at peace without demanding change, and that's the last thing the Left (and the world as a whole) needs right now.  We have a status quo, too, and we do ourselves a disservice by never examining ourselves when things aren't going all that well.  How does that saying go... the true mark of madness is to keep doing the same things expecting different results.  At least, that is indeed a good way to go mad.

By "will not tolerate," I simply mean I will try to engage in these discussions more often, where I feel I have previously been relatively silent on these matters.  When I don't talk about it, they grate at me, and I've found I begin harboring silent resentment towards people I should be trying to strengthen my bonds with.  Which, of course, is not healthy.

So there it is... my Zero Tolerance Zone for 2011.