...and then I was Home.

I just re-read my 2011 Farewell Letter. It's airy, idealistic, and ambiguous. Mostly because that's how things felt at last year's end. I had no idea how 2012 would go, but I was privileged to begin it with the person I hoped to spend it with. And I did. And things have gone from ambiguous to concrete, which is in and of itself a wonderful thing, if not far more boring than the flighty idealism that I began the year with.

My partner and I are in a good place. We've made some huge changes in our lives, strengthened our commitment to one another, and navigated past some fairly complicated road blocks. More on that later.

I've continued healing from my past relationship, locating my baggage and acknowledging that I will probably carry it for years. I've learned to let go of the fact that I cannot be the one to tell him what I think he needs to hear. While I was never perfect, I am not a bad person. Let me be clear that he didn't actively seek to make me feel like one, but for the length of our relationship, that is what he did to me. Learning these things about him, through hours and hours of therapeutic processing, has in and of itself allowed me to let him go for good. If that means we're not friends anymore, it means we're not friends anymore. But I cannot be responsible for him, his actions, or the way he treated me. As I'm often so fond of saying, shit ain't mine.

A major thing I've learned this year may surprise some: I realized I am far too agreeable. That's probably a funny thought for anyone who knows me politically, but for those acquainted with my personal life, it should make perfect sense. So this year has been about beginning a new pattern, where I speak up if something is bothering me, not worry about inconveniencing someone if it's a reasonable request, and just generally be more honest about what I want and need in life. Again, those who only know me as the raving feminist with all the crazy opinions will read this and ask how on earth they're going to deal with me being even less agreeable, but that's not the arena of my life that's needed work.

But the biggest event in my life involves finding myself and where I belong. Looking around my house this morning, I realized it feels more like Home than it ever has.

There's something profound about the word Home. To many, home is merely a place you keep your  things and sleep at night. But they're wrong. What makes Home different from your house is simple: how does it make you feel?

At Home, we are at ease. We find comfort, solace, and pure acceptance for who we are. By definition, an enormous portion of the population is Homeless. By definition, I've been Homeless for years.

You'd think my lack of Home during my relationship with C would have tipped me off. But we're good at kidding ourselves, of creating the illusion of Home as a matter of survival. And I don't blame myself for refusing to see the truth; leaving is complicated. I guess I should give C a break on that one... abandonment was indeed the easier path.

But back to Home. It happened so organically. Almost as if it was fate. It's cliche in a way, but it's true. Going from Homeless to just happily rootless in 2011 has given way to my 2012, where I discovered how profoundly I fit in in spaces I did not even know existed. I've made new friends that immediately accepted me as I am, and I them. My old friends feel closer, golden with years of memories combined with my newly-found comfort to be open about everything I am and want.

My life continues to transition, as I hope it always does, but my roots are stronger, clearer, and more defined. Upheaval is met with more confidence, uncertainty with courage and calculated steps forward. My head is clearer, I know what I want most of the time, and I'm trying to be better at achieving it. Large-scale life changes no longer frighten me or pull me into a cycle of complete panic and anxiety. And if nothing else, I know any level of crazy I need to pull out will be met with love, compassion, and support.

I am Home.

Prescribed Addiction

I'll preface by saying that the following is not meant to diminish the experiences of those who have dealt with (and perhaps overcome) addiction to recreational substances. I recognize that my prescription drug is a) legal, b) easy to obtain, c) fairly cheap, and d) not likely to land me in legal trouble any time soon. But seeing how it is as close as I'll hopefully ever come to feeling "like an addict," I believe my experience with Paxil is one that deserves to be spoken about.

I started taking Paxil a little over 12 years ago. What was going on in my life: I was sixteen, looking towards beginning my junior year at an expensive private high school in Atlanta's ritzier neighborhood. Death had encompassed my life over the previous year as I dealt with the passing of five people close to me: three elderly family members, one suicide by a queer teenaged friend, and a close relative of my best friend that died suddenly and unexpectedly at a young age. While I did not personally know the latter, his was the one that hit me hardest. He was young, barely into college the way I remember it. He had an undiagnosed heart condition that had never caused him any trouble until he was just... gone. Young people dying suddenly and without notice. That was scary for me.

The panic attacks became so regular that my life was on hold. I could not so much as stand up out of bed without the crippling feeling like my heart was going to give out. But really... why would it have? I was a dancer, one of the most active kids in my peer group. I was healthy, ate well, had no family history of congenital organ defects. But people who suffer from panic disorder are irrational by definition.

So my parents did what was likely the only thing to get me back on my feet before school started back up: took me to a shrink who would give me pills. After all, legitimate panic disorder manifests as a true chemical imbalance (shut up Tom Cruise, you're an idiot), so drug therapy was surely the proper treatment.

It worked so miraculously that we all but forgot to look for the underlying cause of the imbalance. I understand now that chemical imbalances rarely "just happen" and that drug therapy is best used as a temporary solution in conjunction with whatever will get to the heart of it all. Of course my teenaged self wasn't about to ask questions. After all, I was one of many sixteen year olds on SSRIs. In 2000, it had become as normal as teen angst, and all I had to do was take a pill. Take a pill, feel normal, repeat.

After a decade of this, I started thinking about my reproductive future. Paxil is not safe to take during pregnancy, and I would not will the risk of heart anomalies on a future child. So I'm in therapy (the kind with a person who doesn't have prescription privileges), working on whatever it is I think I should be working on. Hopefully I'll go off the drug one day, but past attempts have not fared well.

Anyway, Paxil is known for its withdrawal symptoms. I've had quite a few experiences with this. I forget to get my prescription refilled before the pharmacy closes, and so I have to wait until morning. Those nights are hell. I had one last night.

These are the moments that make me feel like a drug addict, where I feel as though I can sympathize - if only mildly - with people who have battled addictions themselves. I woke up a number of times overnight after having vivid nightmares. Cold sweat. Hot but freezing. Mouth dry. Sheets below me damp with perspiration, dizzy and emotional. These are not the symptoms of panic disorder itself as the drug manufacturers would like you to believe; this is drug withdrawal.

That this kind of thing can result from a legal drug, one that is prescribed to millions with promises of "normalcy" while innocuous substances like marijuana carry severe life-ruining consequences, is beyond my comprehension. My psychiatrist is a drug peddler, pure and simple. He requires one appointment every two years to continue refilling your prescription. The last one was immediately after my husband left me. In our 20 minute phone conversation, the only real advice he offered was to up my dose from 20mg/day to 30mg/day. (I did not ever do this... my marriage was ending, I wasn't supposed to feel normal.) The Klonopin he also prescribed proved a beneficial bandage as well, but I've learned that this man's job is not to fix but to drug.

And such is the problem with our society's treatment of mental illness. We assume these things "just happen," so just take this drug, don't worry about it, you don't need to look inward to find answers. Or rather, we don't have the time to soul-search for their roots. Drugging is easier, it's cheaper, and it's not at all time consuming. My current therapy is definitely not easy. It's not cheap. It takes time. I'm privileged to have the ability to do it, and in the long run it will be way less expensive than whatever health problems I'll experience from the decade plus of Paxil exposure. But again... we're not a society set up to prioritize those kinds of holistic self-care practices.

So we drug. And drug. And drug some more.

"Rejection" Video: From viral video to assault epidemic

Totally not discussing the election today. Because really... no.

There's a video a lot of people are posting where a boy toddler is repeatedly and aggressively pressing himself against a girl toddler despite her continued efforts to push him away. People are absolutely cooing over it, remarking at how adorable it is and "awe he's in love," and "oh look that little girl is so assertive and cute."

I gotta say, it's not friggin cute. It's an absolute disregard of this little girl’s boundaries. Then there's the adult behind the camera, giggling and doing nothing... how disgusting. And how analogous it is to when grown men don’t take no for an answer, no matter how much a woman pushes and shoves and says no.

You might say, but they're just babies. They don't know any better. "Boys will be boys." Oh yeah? And at what age, exactly, does this kind of invasive behavior become "not okay," because I've heard people use the same excuse for college-aged men who sexually harass women. And what better time to teach someone that pushing himself (or herself) upon a person who clearly doesn't want to be touched is not fucking okay? Instead, we film it and redistribute it all over the internet, cooing and laughing. Gross.

This is how we teach boys not to respect women’s spaces.

Last Night's Nums: Braised Coconut Spinach and Chickpeas

This was a very simple recipe that, while curry-ish, was a nice change from the constant legitimate curries we eat around here. It's very flavorful and goes well over brown rice (though any grain would probably work). What's more, it's made almost entirely from things we regularly stock, so it's a nice thing to throw together on those nights where you want to eat in but haven't thought ahead enough to go shopping.

You will need:

2 teaspoons oil or ghee
1 small yellow onion
2 cups red potato, chopped into 1" chunks
4 large cloves garlic, peeled and minced
1 tablespoon fresh grated ginger
2 teaspoons turmeric
1/3 cup sun-dried tomatoes, chopped
1 large lemon, zested and juiced (about 2 tablespoons juice)
Dash of red pepper flakes
15-ounce can chickpeas, drained
1/2 pound frozen spinach
14-ounce can coconut milk
1 teaspoon salt, or to taste
1 teaspoon ground ginger

Instructions:

Complete with a view of the
utter mess that is my kitchen.

Heat the oil or ghee in a large, deep Dutch oven or heavy pot over medium-high heat. Add the onion and potatoes and cook for about 5 minutes, or until the onion is beginning to brown. Add the garlic, fresh ginger, sun-dried tomatoes, lemon zest and red pepper, if using. Cook for 3 minutes, stirring frequently.

Add the chickpeas and cook over high heat for a few minutes or until the chickpeas are beginning to turn golden and they are coated with the onion and garlic mixture.

Reduce heat to medium. Toss in the spinach and stir to blend. It will begin to look and smell seriously tasty. Let cook until all the ice crystals have melted off the spinach. (If using fresh spinach, toss in one handful at a time until the wilting makes room for more.)

When all the spinach has been stirred in, pour in the coconut milk and stir in the salt, ground ginger, and lemon juice. Bring to a simmer then turn down the heat and cook for 10 minutes or until the chickpeas are warm through. Taste and add more salt and lemon juice, if necessary.

Garnish with cilantro. Serve over brown rice with a side of nan or other tasty flat bread.

YUM!

The Wolf or the Fox? Or, why I voted 3rd party this year.

So I'm officially "coming out" and letting everyone know that I wrote in Stein/Honkala on my ballot this year.

Believe it or not, this was kind of difficult decision for me. In past election cycles, I've allowed myself to be roped into the "lesser of two evils" game, told that I should vote for the Democrat for purposes of "damage control," that I as a woman should understand this more than anyone. And in past elections, I felt pretty okay about it.

So why the sudden change? Well, for one thing, I realized that I've never actually used my right to vote to vote FOR someone. Every time, I'm voting AGAINST Bush, AGAINST McCain, this or that person. I'm sick of it, and this time I wanted to use my vote - that right that my feminist foremothers fought tirelessly for - to amplify my voice, not my concession.

Of course this decision has been/will continue to be met with some heated arguments for an Obama vote. So I thought I'd address some of those here.

"But why this election? This is the most important election of our lifetime!" 

Yeah you said that last time. And the time before that.

Okay, I get it. The idea of a Romney presidency scares you even more than the prospect of a McCain/Palin administration scared you four years ago. I do not blame you; the Republicans have become increasingly confident in the past few years, and they are using that confidence to push some seriously frightening policies.  I mean, that so many GOP'ers feel okay saying totally inappropriate (and inaccurate) things about abortion and rape is frightening enough... that they continue to garner support from a large portion of the population is beyond me.

But really, why not let this be an important election for Third Parties as well? I believe that enough people are disenfranchised with the limitations of our two-party system that now is the time to shift the conversation. The more buzz these third parties get, the better. To borrow words from my candidate, Dr. Stein:

"Progressives have been told we dare not vote for our values and our vision because dangerous things will happen — witness Ralph Nader. We have 10 years of experience with muzzling ourselves politically, and it’s very clear now that silence has not been an effective political strategy, and that the politics of fear in fact has delivered all those things that we were afraid of."

"Great, I totally see the value in generating buzz for third parties. But why do you have to do it this election??"

What, are you going to be more receptive to my "throwing away my vote" next time around? I seem to remember the exact same line being used in 2008. And 2004. The point is, there's never going to be an "ideal time" to shift the conversation, so why not today?

"But but but... the courts! You of all people should recognize the importance of the courts!!"

I know, I know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is likely to retire soon, as are a couple other Supreme Court justices. Roe v. Wade is in danger. I understand. I went through that entire process in my head, and when I came out of it, I still could not in good conscience cast a vote for Obama.

Look, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would be a disaster. But it would also be an opportunity. We've become so overwhelmed with the reproductive rights struggle that we’re in defensive mode. We’re trying desperately to hold on to the limited rights we won back in 1973 with the Roe v. Wade decision. Because of the numerous attacks on the basic right to choose, it almost seems like we have no alternative. 
 
But simply holding on to what we gained with Roe bars a large percentage of the population from their realization of reproductive justice. For example, Roe v. Wade never guaranteed access to abortion, evidenced by the passage of the Hyde Amendment several years later. This amendment continues to restrict abortion access to young and lower-income women of all stripes.

The battle over Roe has also forced us to focus our attention solely on the legality of abortion. To be sure, the vision of reproductive justice is not about the right to terminate a pregnancy; to me, reproductive justice encompasses the entire experience of being a sexual being capable of reproduction. When we focus solely on maintaining Roe, we lose our ability to fight for everything else. Reproductive justice encompasses far more than convincing legislators to allow us to do what we should have the right to do in the first place, and as disastrous as it would be to lose Roe, it would open the door for some real shit to start happening.

"But you're a health care worker! What about Obamacare? Your clients could lose their insurance coverage for your services."

Indeed they could. But if I remember correctly, Obama already sold out my and my clients' rights when he used our health care as a bargaining chip to get the bill passed in the first place. And just because the Affordable Care Act makes women's health care a more accessible doesn't mean it's anything close to what we deserve. The people of the United States deserve universal, single-payer health care; Democrats never wanted to fight for that in the first place, and if they did, they dropped that platform at the first accusation of "socialism." All the more reason to cast a ballot for someone who believes that health care is a basic human right.

"I mean, Obama's not perfect, but he's not that bad, is he?"

I'm not as elegant as I'd like to be on this matter, so I'll let Dr. Stein break it down for us:

"Obama has basically embraced most of Bush’s policies, including drill baby drill, pro-nuke, pro-coal, undermining the Durban [climate] accords. He’s celebrating the beginnings of the Keystone pipeline. We still have twice as many troops in Afghanistan as we had under George Bush. The only reason Obama withdrew from Iraq was because he was unable to negotiate immunity for the troops, so he wound up having to accept what was George Bush’s timeline for withdrawal."

What it comes down to is that progressives have no voice in our corrupt, money-driven electoral system. If it were up to me, this system wouldn't even exist anymore, but when I have the opportunity to vote for someone who truly reflects my values, I'll take it. Casting a ballot for a war-mongering corporate candidate, to me, is almost as offensive as casting one for a war-mongering corporate candidate who's also anti-choice and anti-LGBTQ. Remember, the main difference between Republicans and Democrats is lube.

Lastly, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not look down upon progressives who have had the same internal dialogue and came to a different conclusion. If you harbor very real criticisms of Obama but voted for him anyway, I completely understand. If you harbor so many criticisms of the system that you don't vote at all, I understand that as well. I'm not going to put you down, call you a spineless liberal, or accuse you of "playing into" the system. Your vote is your choice, and so long as it is well-informed, I respect your decision. All I ask in return is that you do the same for me.

Feminism and the Case of the Shrinking Costume

This is going around the interwebs today:

The Evolution of Girls' Halloween Costumes

I've made it a policy not to engage in debate with the friends of acquaintances, but when the friend of a friend commented on Facebook that feminism, secularism, and sex positivity were to blame for this phenomenon, I decided to come here to discuss the many ways she's wrong.

Patriarchy manifests itself differently in different cultures. In theocracies, it may come with the expectation that a woman remain completely modest in dress and behavior, norms that may or may not be enforced by law. In our capitalist society, however, patriarchy manifests as the idea that our bodies - and our sexualities - are commodities to be bought and sold, cheered on and exploited by the standards of the male gaze.

The common theme is that our bodies are not our own; they are controlled by a system of oppression, or sometimes even by another human being directly. Whether we're being forced to cover ourselves against our will or made to believe that our only worth comes in being sexy for another person's enjoyment, it's all patriarchy, and it's all intensely detrimental.

So the sexy costumes. I have friends who enjoy them immensely. But you know what? They're grown adults who have chosen - though likely through a lifetime of socialization - to don very skimpy outfits on Halloween, at parties, etc. Most of them wouldn't be caught dead in a Halloween store's $10 faux corset, but at a glance their wardrobe choices appear similar to the costumes I tend to roll my eyes at. Which is to say, I don't exactly cheer on the practice, but I do respect it as a means of self-expression, a reflection of our patriarchal society though it may be.

It gets hairy when you start parsing "choice" and "autonomy" with the knowledge that we do not exist in a vacuum, that all our behaviors and choices are influenced by the way we've been brought up. But what we can probably all agree on is that the availability of these ever-shrinking costumes - and the disappearance of other options - pollutes the minds of girls from a very early age. If from a young age a girl consistently sees nothing but outfits that highlight her chest and fall far above her knee, how can we even begin to hope that she will be able to express her sexuality autonomously as an adult?

Make no mistakes... the sexualization of young girls is not the result of feminism, secularism, or sex positivity (ideals that all deem autonomous decision making and healthy sexuality of high value). No, childhood sexualization comes, not surprisingly, from our culture's version of patriarchy: a capitalist view that sees bodies as objects to be bought and sold.

Waiting Till The Wedding Night, Helpfully Explained By The Bluth Family

Inspired by Jezebel's GIF parade to explain the recent Fox News "opinion" piece on waiting until marriage, I present to you...

Waiting Till The Wedding Night - Getting Married The Right Way
Helpfully Explained by the Bluth Family

As anyone who’s read my abstinence column here at Fox News Opinion could guess, my wedding is something that I’ve looked forward to for quite some time. After having tied the knot at the end of August, I can now say beyond all shadow of a doubt, that it was everything I’d hoped and prayed that it would be since childhood. (I’d also prayed to be bitten by a radioactive spider and develop sticky hands, but… I was an idiot.)

Let me preface this column by saying this: my wife (I have to get used to saying that) and I not only waited sexually in every way (no, we didn’t pull the Bill Clinton and technically avoid “sex” sex,)...

...but we didn’t shack up as live-ins and most importantly, we courted each other in a way that was consistent with our publicly professed values.

We did it right.

Feeling judged? I couldn’t care less. You know why? Because my wife and I were judged all throughout our relationship. People laughed, scoffed and poked fun at the young, celibate, naive Christian couple. 

  We’d certainly never make it to the wedding without schtupping, and if we did, our “wedding night would be awkward and terrible,” they said. 

Turns out that people couldn’t have been more wrong.  Looking back, I think that the women saying those things felt like the floozies they ultimately were, and the men, with their fickle manhood tied to their pathetic sexual conquests, felt threatened.

I think it’s important to write this column not to gloat (though I’ll be glad to), but to speak up for all of the young couples that have also done things the right way. When people do marriage right, they don’t complain so much, and so their voices are silenced by the rabble of promiscuous charlatans, peddling their pathetic world view as “progressive.”

 

Our wedding was perfect.

 Our wedding night was nothing short of amazing.

I write this on a plane heading into a tropical paradise with the most beautiful woman to have walked the planet earth. I know everybody says that their bride was the “most beautiful in the world.”  They’re wrong. I win.

I’d like to tell you a story of our morning after, however. One that transpired into one of the most glaring epiphanies I’d ever had.

 

As my wife (again, still not used to that) and I ate breakfast at a local inn, we discussed how excited we were to start the rest of our lives together, how scary it was that everything was now so different. At the same time, we overheard the table next to us discussing their very own wedding from the night prior. What a coincidence!

“The thing is, nothing’s really changed,” the bride said.

Puzzled, my wife asked, “Did you get married last night too? So did we!”

“Congratulations!” the other dame said. “Yeah we did, just last night.”

“Where’s the groom?” my wife innocently… scratch that, naively asked.

“Oh, he’s sleeping. There was no way he was coming out with me this morning!” She paused and smirked. “Let’s just say that he’s got a lingering headache from a really good time last night.”

My heart sank. Firstly, that poor schmuck's “good time” was simply getting snookered. Not enjoying the company of close family and long-lost friends with a clear head and clean conscience, not staring in awe at his beautiful new wife, wanting to soak in every glimmer of her eyes as she shot him heart-racing looks from across the dance floor, not taking all of the cheesy pictures as they cut the cake, not even carrying her across that suite threshold as they nervously anticipated their “nightcap.”

He probably won’t remember any of it. Instead, he got smashed. He was “that guy”… at his own freaking wedding.

Then I realized something. Our wedding was truly a once in a lifetime event. It was a God’s-honest celebration of two completely separate lives now becoming one. Physically, emotionally, financially and spiritually, everything that made us who we were individually was becoming what bonded us together. Our family traveled from far and wide to celebrate the decision of two young people to truly commit themselves to each other, and selflessly give themselves to one another in a way that they never had before that very night.

The people next to us that morning? Well, theirs was just one big party.  And the morning after? Just another hangover.

Our “weddings” were the same event in name only. They know it, and we know it.

Do yours the right way.  If you’re young and wondering whether you should wait, whether you should just give in, become a live-in harlot/mimbo and do it the world’s way.  

If you’re wondering whether all of the mocking, the ridicule, the incredible difficulty of saving yourself for your spouse is worth it, let me tell you without a doubt that it is. Your wedding can be the most memorable day and night of your life… or just another party.

Oops. Did I just make a “judgment?”  You’re darn right I did.

The Waiters

So this came to my attention today.

Okay, for the record, being sex positive means not judging people for their sexual tastes and practices. And that includes not judging folks who, how to put this, "wait" until they're married to do the deed. I certainly don't judge the author of the above article for his relationship choices, despite the fact that he probably thinks I do. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a way outdated concept riddled with oppressive societal norms, but as a friend of mine likes to say, "If abstinence is your fetish, who am I to judge?"

The issue I have with "The Waiters" is that they're so fucking high and mighty about it. They think that the rest of us - the slutty promiscuous sinners who surely will never find true happiness because we just "give it away" to anything that moves - actually want the same things but just don't have the strength or moral integrity to "do things right."

WHICH IS PATHETIC. It's a dream world. I never harbored some uber-sanctified idea of my "virginity." I don't believe "virginity" is even a real physiological state; to me, it's a social construct kept locked up behind a facade of bunk science and poor understanding of reproductive anatomy. And again, if you want to place value on the concept of virginity, then by all means. That's your business. But don't start pulling information from a 19th century textbook to tell me that all women bleed like a slaughtered pig the first time they have intercourse.

So no, I never saw much value in waiting until marriage, in the concept of my supposed "virginity." Does that mean I don't respect myself or my body? Have poor self esteem? Need to "give it up" to keep a man around? Hardly. Let's look at the facts: I have never had sex with someone because I needed to be validated. The only time I've ever had sex under any kind of pressure that surpassed my own autonomy was in a bad relationship that needed to end (a married relationship, at that).

Bad relationship drama aside, I have remained very sexually autonomous in a world that would love to see me otherwise. To start, I was very well educated, mostly by my private (but not religious) school which actually taught comprehensive sex education. The first time I had sex, I was just a few days shy of 17. My boyfriend and I talked it over, we evolved to a place where becoming sexual with one another was something we were both comfortable with, and oh yeah, WE USED PROTECTION. And you know what? I don't regret a thing.

I understand that I'm treading into becoming high and mighty myself, so I want to interject here that I am not trying victim blame. I understand that sexual relationships are far too often entered into for unhealthy reasons, and I believe good, moral people fall into the traps set by a system of inequality between the sexes. So let me say this: anyone who manipulates someone else into having sex with them is a stain upon the wonderful world of human sexuality. The people who fall for it are generally socialized to do so by a system of capitalist patriarchy, which teaches us (particularly those of us with girl parts) that sex is a commodity to be bought and sold while simultaneously shaming us for taking part in it. (Consequently, this is the same system that the aforementioned author likely aligns himself with... food for thought.)

But back to the article. "Oh, we're so much better than that woman who's husband is sleeping it off because we actually feel different today!" You ever stop to think that maybe that couple doesn't want your life? That they don't want your marriage? That they simply didn't perceive their wedding to be this sudden, life-altering event, but rather a wonderful milestone in an already-evolving relationship?

Naw, they wanted to wait, to not live together first. They just fell to temptation. They're weak. Their morals are in shambles. Your way is so much better.

Fuck your understanding of morals. Morality isn't something you abide by just because some centuries-old book tells you to. Morality is something you have internalized for yourself, and even if it does come from a religious influence, you've still internalized it for personal reasons. I'm a very moral person, but for a number of reasons I could never internalize the kind of morality that your religion pushes. However, I do have extremely clear guidelines for how I handle everything from conflict to sexuality, and I very rarely waiver on any of it. One of my favorite morals is non-judgment. As I've said, I don't judge The Waiters. That's their business. But I have a very clear moral duty to call them out on their bullshit when I see them doing harm by passing moral judgment on others.

"Oh, but marriage is just the way to go." Right, because sexual relationships are always great if you're married. People never use sex to manipulate their partners in a marriage. A married man never rapes or sexually assaults his wife. All relationship problems would just magically be solved if everyone would just get married.

Whatever. I hope he and his wife enjoy a long and happy life in whatever alternate reality they currently reside in.

Enough ranting and cursing for now... Jezebel makes it better with all the hilarious GIFs.

Newsflash: It's Not Unusual To Measure Pregnancy From Two Weeks Prior To Conception

The following is a cross-post from RHRealityCheck.org
------------------------

Dear Everyone,
Please stop referring to Arizona's new abortion ban as the "Pregnancy Begins Two Weeks Before Conception Act."  It's an ill-informed statement and makes us all look like we don't know what we're talking about.  Plus, it focuses on the wrong aspects of the bill.

First of all, from a health care standpoint, pregnancy is nearly always measured from two weeks prior to when implantation (the physiological beginning of pregnancy) actually occurs.  All clinicians - doctors, midwives, the good folks at your local Planned Parenthood - measure pregnancy not from how long a person has actually been pregnant, but from their last menstrual period (LMP), which falls about two weeks prior to implantation.  This is partly because we don't always know exactly when a person actually became pregnant, but mostly because it's far more accurate to measure a person's unique gestation rate by her cycle. 

In other words, if I was pregnant and had my last menstrual period on July 23, I would be classified as "six weeks pregnant" even though I've probably only been pregnant for about four.  This is not unusual, and all clinics that provide abortions measure your pregnancy this way.

Now, let's instead focus on the real problems with this bill.  The ban on abortions after the 20th week LMP (18 weeks gestation, for those of you playing along at home) is an arbitrary marker backed up by the idea that fetuses feel pain after this point (there in fact is no evidence to support this claim).  My own state of North Carolina has had this ban in place for years, as do Alabama, Louisiana, Kansas, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. The Arizona bill also requires women to have an ultrasound 24 hours to having an abortion, requires clinics that provide abortions to be held to higher standards than most other outpatient surgical facilities, and states that providers must have admitting privileges in local hospitals (again not something that is generally required of practitioners operating in other kinds of outpatient surgical centers).  In other words, the Arizona bill is a major attack on abortion access, not just a bill that challenges our understanding of gestational measurement.

So really, instead of calling it the "Pregnancy Begins Two Weeks Before Conception Act," I'd like to suggest the following alternatives:

• The "Let's All Use Bunk Science To Legislate When A Fetus Feels Pain" Act
• The "Arbitrary Guidelines On Gestational Restrictions For Abortion" Act
• The "Women Are Incapable Of Making Their Own Decisions" Act
• The "State-Sanctioned Rape" Act (to borrow from the Virginia bill passed earlier this year)
• The "Let's Place So Many Restrictions On Who Can Provide Abortions That No One Can" Act

The above suggestions don't necessarily roll off the tongue, and to be sure they don't make for decent soundbites either.  But they would keep this whole mess from becoming known as the "Pro-Choice People Don't Know Anything About Pregnancy" debacle. 

Your Friendly Full-Spectrum Doula,
Lauren

FYI - Breastfeeding Certifications

You know those letters after a doula's name that don't necessarily have to do with being a doula? Often those are credentials from different (but related) organizations and may indicate a specialty in a number of birthy areas: childbirth education, massage and bodywork, breastfeeding support, placenta encapsulation, nursing, etc.

There are many credentials that revolve around lactation, which can often be confusing when an already-exhausted family is searching for the right kind of support. Each of the below certifications qualifies one to offer a certain level of breastfeeding support, however, the IBCLC is the only credential that is qualified to provide clinical assessments and address the full scope of lactation challenges.

The following list lays out what each certification means, how one certifies, and the scope of practice associated with each.

IBCLC - International Board Certified Lactation Consultant - This is a clinical credential that requires several thousand hours of required study, education and training culminating in a once per year international exam given by IBLCE. IBCLCs must rerecertify every 5 years, and every 10 must retake the exam. These clinicians work in hospitals, birth centers, out of their homes, and in private practices. They perform complete evaluations and assessments of both mother and infant and create individual plans of care, working hands on with all breastfeeding challenges as well as more complex health issues.
*Sidenote: I took the IBLCE exam this past July and am waiting on my results, which will be mailed in October.  Fingers crossed! :)

RLC - Registered Lactation Consultant - This credential is used in conjunction with IBCLC within the United States.

CLE - Certified Lactation Educator - CLEs have completed a 20-hour course on breastfeeding support and completed approximately 25 additional hours of out-of-class coursework which culminates in a certificate of completion from CAPPA. CLEs are trained to teach breastfeeding classes and answer basic breastfeeding questions, however, they must refer out to IBCLC for more complex cases and are not trained for hands on consults.

CLC - Certified Lactation Counselor - CLCs have completed a 45 hour course of education, culminating in a certificate of completion, sometimes after completing an end-of-course exam, from The Center for Breastfeeding. They are trained to counsel on normal breastfeeding situations and troubleshoot minor challenges, however, they must refer out to an IBCLC for more complex cases and are not trained for hands-on consults.
*Sidenote: I completed this course as a stepping stone towards the IBCLC. I highly recommend it for any doula or childbirth educator who wishes to hone in on their lactation support skills, or anyone who's considering sitting for the IBLCE exam.

CLS - Certified Lactation Specialist - Similar to CLC, CLSs certify through Lactation Education Consultants by attending a 45-hour course and completing an end-of-course exam. They are trained to educate, support, and counsel mothers on normal breastfeeding situations, however, are not qualified to perform hands-on consults or administer clinical plans of care.
*Sidenote: I know of several doulas who have spoken very highly of this course as a supplement to their doula services, or as a stepping stone to the IBCLC.

BEC - Breastfeeding Educator Certification - Those who hold a BEC have completed an intensive course of study with Birth Arts International. Prospective BECs complete a lengthy in-classroom or self-study course on the science of lactation, anatomy and physiology, pedagogy, sociology, medical terminology, and counseling. They must also complete 600 hours of supervised lactation support in varying clinical settings in their communities.  The BEC certification is community-specific and qualifies students to teach, support, and educate the public on breastfeeding and related issues and policies. 

BC - Breastfeeding Counselor - A relatively new organization, Breastfeeding USA certifies mothers to lead free, highly accessible support groups for breastfeeding mothers. They answer questions regarding normal breastfeeding situations, offer tips for troubleshooting challenges, and refer out to IBCLC support when indicated. 

LLLL - La Leche League Leader - La Leche League International is the oldest breastfeeding support organization in the country, now offering support groups all over the world. LLL leaders receive a multitude of training in normal breastfeeding situations, offering tips for troubleshooting challenges, and know when to refer out to IBCLC support. Offers mom to mom support in a casual and accessible environment. Many IBCLCs started as LLL Leaders.

WIC Certified Breastfeeding Peer Counselor - WIC CBPCs are employed by state WIC offices and provide support to breastfeeding mothers who qualify for WIC at no additional cost. While the requirements vary state by state, WIC Peer Counselors are mothers who have breastfed themselves and have completed comprehensive study in breastfeeding management, counseling, cultural diversity, and education.

Our Foreskins, Ourselves

A number of people have asked me my opinion on the new American Academy of Pediatrics statement on infant circumcision, released today. But y'all know I'd have my opinion out there even if I hadn't been asked, so here it is:

• The background: It appears the AAP has taken the same body of evidence they've used for the past 13 years plus one new study and somewhat reversed their stance. Despite the hype that the AAP now "recommends" routine circumcision, what the AAP has done is take into account one new study on HIV transmission and is now saying that "the benefits may outweigh the risks." While this is a stone's throw from actually recommending routine male circumcision, it's close enough, and future parents will take it to heart.  Sidebar: The AAP is now the only major pediatric association in the world that does not clearly oppose routine infant circumcision.
  
• While they have added a single study on HIV transmission, the study they are actually referencing cites VOLUNTARY male circumcision, as in, by choice at an adult age, in areas of the world where HIV rates are astoundingly high. This has led to the idea that circumcision at birth somehow protects men from contracting STIs later in life. However, among industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks high in both STI transmission rates (including HIV) and percentage of boys circumcised at birth. In other words, we don't even have correlative evidence to back up this claim. Of course STI transmission is a big concern to me personally, but I don't see how removing a functional part of a boy's penis at birth is going to somehow protect him from contracting an infection later in life. To address this issue, I'd advocate instead for a) comprehensive sex education in schools, b) more funding for youth programs that encourage and increase access to safer sex practices, and c) a society that isn't so sex-negative that things like condoms and penises can't even be discussed in a frank and honest manner.
  
• Regarding the "penile cancer" risk: Penile cancer is extremely rare. When it does occur, it usually manifests in what we call the "foreskin" of the penis. So by removing the foreskin at birth, a male infant will grow up to be less likely to develop a cancer that he was already unlikely to develop in the first place. By this logic, we should also be removing the breast buds of baby girls. Think about it... breast cancer manifests in the functional breast tissue, the basis for which is present at birth. And seeing how breast cancer is far more common than penile cancer, we should be taking every possible precaution. We'll do it when they're two days old, so they won't remember it. We'll use anesthesia, so they won't feel it. And if they want to have kids later in life, well, they can just feed their babies with infant formula. And besides, women can still get some sexual pleasure without their breasts being involved. (See how ridiculous this sounds?)
  
  
• This is just speculation, but... given the fact that more and more insurance companies (and Medicaid) is seeing infant circumcision as a cosmetic procedure, they tend to not cover the costs. Perhaps the AAP is changing their position so they can continue performing the procedure regularly (cough cough cha-ching cough cough). Again, just speculation.

At this point, the sex-positive person in me wants to rail on and on about the sexual implications of removing the nerve-rich foreskin at birth, but instead I'll let Laci Green break it down for us:



Further Reading:
Doctors Opposing Circumcision: Commentary on American Academy of Pediatrics 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement (pdf)
Intact America
The Whole Network

A Letter To The Guy Who Catcalled Me In Front Of The Harris Teeter

Or, A Day In The Life Of A Female Body Living Under Patriarchy

Dear Potential Rapist,

You watched me approach the store entrance while lighting your cigarette. I made eye contact with you and possibly ventured a smile, something my Southern nature tells me to do when passing by even the strangest of strangers. You clearly took that as an invitation, nodding, raising your eyebrows, and saying something to the effect of, "Hey there you lil' gorgeous thing, what you lookin' for this afternoon? A good time?"

I wanted to turn to you and respond that I was lookin' to buy some groceries so my partner and I can eat tonight. Tell you that my polite nature is not an invitation to harass me. Then I wanted to ask what you thought would come of it. Did you think I would jump into your car with you? Have mad anonymous sex with you because you're clearly just that hot? Or does harassing random women do enough for you? Does it make you feel like a big man, worthy of respect in a society that offers you little based on your race and socio-economic status?

But I said none of these things. Instead I averted my eyes, dropped my gaze, and hurried into the store where my every move would be caught on security camera.

See, I'm a pretty strong person. I generally stand up for myself and others without blinking an eye. I regularly assist women through long labors without hardly sitting down, let alone sleeping. I have held my own in arguments on complex and controversial topics ranging from abortion, queer lib, rape culture, etc. I've even used my body as a human shield between abortion patients and groups of people who very possibly want me dead.

But you forced upon me the kind of vulnerability from which even the strongest of women are so often unable to recover. As much as I would have loved to turn around and tell you what's what, the threat of further verbal - or worse, physical - harassment turned me into little more than a timid schoolgirl, and I was silenced. So if that was indeed your goal, congratulations.

When I exited the store, you were still there.  My heart skipped a beat as you stood up from the bench where you had apparently been sitting, waiting. A thousand different thoughts flew through my head at once: would someone really attack a woman in broad daylight, and if so, would bystanders respond? Do I remember the defensive maneuvers I learned in RAD almost a decade ago? Could I take you myself, or will I need to scream for help? And finally, I wish I was wearing better shoes. 

I then considered my knee-length skirt and form-fitting tank top and wondered if your good-for-nothing defense attorney would be able to argue that I was asking for it. Imagined the people who would question why I made eye contact with you in the first place. Recalled every last email my mom has sent me with tips for avoiding an attack. Wished I hadn't scoffed at them.

I walked across the shopping center faster than usual, covertly using storefront windows to see if you were following me (a trick most of us have learned by necessity). You weren't there, but I only breathed a sigh of relief when I got into my car, closed the door, and immediately locked it like I always do.

In a way, I think I should thank you for not letting me go a day without a stark reminder that rape culture exists. This wasn't the first time this has happened to me, and it won't be the last. Young women aren't taught that these things might happen to them... we're taught that they will. And it's a survival mechanism, a societal bandaid that helps us prepare for and avoid potential attacks without ever really asking why these things happen in the first place.

But let me not pass judgment. It's quite possible you've never truly raped a woman in your life; your predatory activities could very well begin and end with street harassment. But I (and whoever else you've catcalled) don't know that. To us, you and all men are potential rapists, and your decision to make unsolicited comments about my being a "gorgeous little thing" doesn't exactly help your case.

See, you may never have stopped to consider how your actions are perceived. And in many ways, you will never fully understand the impact of them. To you, street harassment may at worst embarrass us, gross us out, or make us roll our eyes while giving you a funny story to tell your guy friends later. You need to know, however, that rape culture exists in a continuum. You do not need to physically rape a woman in order to make her afraid of being raped... we're socialized to view you as a potential rapist, and any action that seeks to sexualize, objectify, or threaten us without our consent may be perceived as a precursor to the worst possible end. 

Something to think about.

Sincerely,
Your Potential Victim

Friday Musing: Something To Think About Edition

When I went to urgent care after stepping on a sharp metal object in the driveway (thanks dear!), I was told I should take a round of antibiotics.  The doctor was nice enough, informing me that the antibiotics would interfere with my contraceptive method, and therefore I should use a backup method for the next month.

It was nothing I didn't already know, and yet I left thinking, "That's not the way I would have phrased that."  Okay, I say that a lot.  Obviously I'm the kind of person with certain ideas about how health care should and should not be.  But I really mean that here... that is not the way I would have phrased that.

Last week, the Affordable Care Act went into effect, giving women specifically increased access to health care and support.  While the health care bill has obvious short-comings, women's health advocates celebrated the accomplishment, primarily the new contraception without copay rule that will benefit many (but not all) women using birth control.

Don't get me wrong... increasing economic access to a range of birth control methods is awesome.  It absolutely should be lauded as a great accomplishment for sexual health.  But what's left to battle over are the other barriers.  Social stigma, attacks by religious institutions, and a lack of access to education all shape our society's relationship with birth control, not to mention a common issue that is very often overlooked completely: lack of partner support.

Because it's so hidden, it's difficult to gauge how many women are in relationships that impede their ability to use consistently effective birth control.  Birth control sabotage is particularly common in abusive relationships, the idea being that a person is less able to leave the relationship if she is kept in what amounts to reproductive slavery. Abusers don't always covertly sabotage contraception to force pregnancies on their partners; intimidation, threats, or simple unwillingness to use a condom all create significant obstacles that mere co-pay free contraception is not about to remedy.

Given its potential to go unreported, health care providers need to be able to create a plan of care that can work with or around a patient whose partner is unwilling (or just refuses) to play an active role in safer sex practices.  Today many reproductive health clinics (such as Planned Parenthood) staff providers who are able to do this, helping patients choose a method that cannot be sabotaged or, in some cases, even detected by an intimate partner.  But many general health practitioners - particularly those from "the old school" - fall short of even recognizing this as a potential issue.

So back to my doctor's health counseling.  "You should use a backup method for the next cycle" isn't at all inaccurate.  It's actually good information, clearly stated and with little room for confusion.  However, his counseling in no way acknowledged the fact that using a backup method might be out of the question for me. 

What if he phrased it, "You should use a backup method for the next cycle, is that going to be a problem?"  To be sure, the majority of his patients would have said, "No, that's not going to be a problem," and maybe wondered why he thought it might be.  No harm done.  And the ones who would potentially have a problem would be given the opportunity to say so, possibly receiving advice to prevent pregnancy or even some resources to help them change their situations. 

Health care providers need to be at the forefront of these conversations.  We entrust them with our confidential information, knowing our intimate details are protected by law and by their oaths.  They need to be able to first see if they can help patients get out of abusive situations, but they also need to know that getting out is not always possible, and therefore working within those situations to reduce harm may be the best conceivable option.

Women who wear the hijab are being oppressed by the patriarchy. Ima rock this corset now.

It started out innocently enough: the Facebook page for a mainstream feminist group featured an image of Team USA fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad, the first American woman to compete in an international competition while wearing a hijab.

You know where I'm going with this, don't you?

Oh yes, it happened.  Before I even clicked "view all comments," I knew what I'd find.  And sure enough, I found it:

•  "That's awesome.  Too bad she feels the pressure to cover though.  Damn patriarchy."
• "Good for her! But I can't get past the covering. Poor woman."
• "I hope she wins gold!!  And can be empowered enough to stop having to cover!!!!"

It's really the defining trait of liberal/reformist feminism: privileged Western white ladies having clear-cut ideas about what does and does not constitute oppression, never taking issues of race/class/ethnicity/gender identity into the equation, all the while failing to see where or how they specifically fall into the role of oppressor themselves.  And they just can't shut up about the hijab.  I mean, the second comment says it all, "I can't get past the covering."

I actually engaged that specific commenter in a private conversation, because I do that sometimes.  I've become more particular about who I will engage in deeper-level conversations about privilege and oppression, because let's face it, when you go into an argument with a rabid antichoicer about the morality of abortion, it's just never going to be productive.  But seeing how this particular woman was at least a feminist, I figured what could be the harm.

And it was good.  We had some decent exchanges of ideas and both came out having earned a slightly different perspective on some things.

Then I clicked on her profile.  She had a few photos public, and the ones I could see featured a person, I'm assuming her, dressed up in a corset, fishnets, and heels.  Don't get me wrong, she looked amazing.  If I'd been out and seen her walk by, my reaction would have been one of "hot damn she looks good."  And I'm not one of those feminists who thinks that donning a corset sets women's liberation back three or four decades... while I don't own a corset myself, I have been known to occasionally rock some sexy stuff that would make Andrea Dworkin cringe.

But you must understand that this person made some very scathing comments about how a woman's decision to wear a hijab can never be free of patriarchal influence.  She was very clear about that, even echoing one of my personal favorite talking points: we don't live in a vacuum. It's beyond me, really.  Here's this intelligent woman expressing her discontent with another culture's patriarchal standards while at the same time proudly playing into a centuries-old standard of her own.

I mean obviously it goes back to intersectionality.  There are tons of feminists who believe that they never "buy in" to patriarchal standards with their appearance, but a woman who simply covers her head and hair because of religious tradition has zero autonomy in the matter.  It goes back to our deep-seeded racism and Islamaphobia that, admit it, exists in the majority of us on some level, which is deeply problematic.  For one, it's ignorant: few people who criticize the hijab actually know why it's worn. We're told, mostly by American-based media, that such coverings are required by law in all those mean evil Middle Eastern countries and that's bad.  We pretty much leave it at that.  Secondly, it assumes that we in the United States live in a post-patriarchal society where we've "moved past" all that sexist stuff.  Putting on a vintage-inspired apron and baking cookies for your boyfriend doesn't mean the same thing that it meant 50 years ago... goodness no, the systematic oppression of women - at least in our forward-thinking society - is a thing of the past.  (That's post-feminism, baby!)

Lastly, it's paternalistic.  Liberal/reformist feminists continue to buy into the idea that privileged Western white ladies need to be the ones to "save" other women (Muslim women specifically) from themselves.  This is nothing new... white feminists have been doing this since feminism was feminism. (If you haven't read White Women's Rights by Louise Newman, that should be added to your reading list.  Like now.)  Co-opting the neocolonialist language of our government, these women assume that liberation is something that needs to be given to the women of the world, not something they can achieve for themselves in a way that will jive with their cultures.  Worst of all, no one even attempts to ask Muslim women whether or not they feel oppressed by wearing a hijab, and if they do, they question one or two women of color to gain the appearance of inclusitivity by means of tokenism.  

So my feminist friend "feels bad" that Muslim women are "pressured" to don "unnecessary and uncomfortable articles of clothing" because of patriarchal rule.  I'm picturing the modestly-dressed Muslim women of the world peering at her Facebook pictures, thinking much the same thing.

Overheard at Urgent Care

While awaiting my Tdap injection at urgent care today, I overheard a troubling conversation.  This specific care center has curtains instead of doors closing off exam rooms, so I was able to hear the situation fairly clearly.

A woman had come in with what I understood to be a very serious GI infection.  She had a fever of 103* and was experiencing nausea, chills, and severe dehydration.  After an initial consultation with the doctor, it was advised that she immediately commence a regimen of a certain antibiotic.  She said she'd first have to see if that medication was on the $4 prescription list at Wal-Mart's pharmacy; a quick call by a staff member on her behalf confirmed that this specific medication was not on their $4 prescription list.  The doctor spent a few minutes discussing with her alternative treatment options that would involve a higher dosage and more side effects on top of being less effective, but may be on the pharmacy's low-cost prescription list regardless.

At this point the LPN came in to get my Tdap authorization form, so I was unable to really hear what was going on in the room across the hall.

However, by the time I left the situation had gotten worse.  I'm not sure exactly what they discovered, but it seems no effective medication could be found for a price that fit her budget.  She said she would take the prescription slip and get it filled when she got paid.  On Tuesday.  The doctor became very stern and told her that this specific infection can become fatal very quickly.  It needed to be treated immediately, so beginning on Tuesday was out of the question.

By the time I left, they had made a plan of action: the woman was to be admitted to Moses Cone so that she could be treated today without having the immediate funds to pay for it.  This will end up costing her (and her insurance company) thousands more, however, it appeared to be the only way this woman would be treated in a timely manner, possibly saving her life.

I'll admit I don't have all the information here.  Part of me thinks if I'd just walked over and handed her $4, she'd have been able to get her medication today and avoid admission to a hospital.  But maybe not.  Like I said, I wasn't an active part of the conversation, this was just what I overheard.  And given how helpful the staff at the urgent care was being, my guess is that they'd thoroughly explored all other options before referring her to the hospital for treatment.

This is our health care system, folks.

The Humorless Feminist

Yeah, that's right.  I'm weighing in on the Daniel Tosh clusterfuck.

See, when one speaks out against the use of sexism in comic routines, they risk being labeled "one of those feminists without a sense of humor."  The humorless feminist stereotype has been a cultural archetype since the radical feminists of the 1970s first spoke out against using women's disenfranchisement to make a joke. 

Many people continue to tell themselves that rape jokes are not only okay, but they're also funny and don't do anything to perpetuate rape culture.  We've somehow come to allow ourselves the privilege of invoking gender oppression for the sake of humor, all the while telling ourselves that sexism, misogyny, sexual assault, and partner violence are things of the past (or at least don't exist in our own social circles).  However, in a country where 20% of women report being sexually assaulted, where the gender wage gap still exists as prominently as it was decades ago, and where our government continues to legislate our bodies and sexualities with ease, how can even the most light-hearted jab not reaffirm our society's commitment to gender discrimination? 

This kind of humor has really become popular in self-described "enlightened" circles.  Maybe a person fancies himself a feminist and supports the right to choose.  He probably condemns wage discrimination and treats his female friends and partners as equals.  He may have helped organize Take Back the Night events, and he may speak loudly about the importance of consent.  From this, he may feel he's "earned" the right to make a rape joke or two; after all, he would never rape anyone, so what could really be the harm?

What he doesn't realize is that the women in his extra-enlightened, uber-sex positive and politically radical social circle are just as likely to have experienced sexual assault as the women in the repressed circles he and his friends love to scoff at.  That means that, for every rape joke he tells, 20% of his female friends are forced to hear the worst thing that's ever happened to them turned into a mechanism for cheap laughs.  Worse yet, the ever-present stigma of being a sexual assault victim means that these women are unlikely speak up, lest they become labeled "humorless feminists" who allowed themselves to be raped.  Even the playful jabs of "bitch make me a sandwich" smack of regressive social norms and help to maintain the constraints of male dominance.

Not wanting to be left on the sidelines of social clout, women themselves often become complicit in the maintenance of rape as an acceptable source of humor.  For us, it's even harder to unpack.  After all, haven't we, the clear majority of sexual assault victims, also "earned" this right?  We face the threat of sexual assault every single time we work late and have to walk to our cars alone.  We worry about stopping for gas late at night.  Our hearts skip a beat when we're in the shower and think we hear someone in the house.  We're warned from early childhood about getting into cars with boys, accepting alcoholic beverages at parties, wearing clothes that show too much skin, dancing a certain way, etc.  Why not take this horrendous reality and laugh the weight off of it once in a while, if only while in the company of other women?

I struggled with this one for a while, then I finally realized that, at least in my experience, the opportunity to make a rape joke never really comes up in all-woman gatherings.  It's not that we were censoring ourselves: the compulsion simply isn't there.  From this I can only conclude that jokes about sexual assault exist almost exclusively in rooms where male privilege dominates, and let's be real, male dominance exists even inside groups of anti-sexist wingnuts.

And yet we refrain from speaking up against it, lest we become "the oppressors" ourselves.  How dare we police someone else's god-given right to free speech?  I mean what is this, Nazi Germany?  This is perhaps the most frustrating (and most difficult to refute) accusation, the one that probably silences us more than anything else.  By turning the language of oppression against us, we become the bad guys while they continue perpetuating rape culture under the guise of "freedom of expression."  And with that, we continue to be silenced.

Let me get one thing straight: I have a phenomenal sense of humor.  It's actually a bit warped, which makes some people uncomfortable.  I use the word "fuck" a whole lot.  I enjoy incredibly raunchy jokes, especially those that take an ounce or two of intellect to fully appreciate.  In proper circles, I can make a whole group cringe, laugh, then cringe some more as they add my side-splitting anecdote to their own humor arsenals.  Best of all, I can do it all without having to use sexist or racist language.  That's the opposite of having "no sense of humor." 

My question is, how bad is your sense of humor that you have to turn to years of social injustice to get laughs?  How bad is your vocabulary that you have to use sexist slurs to make a point?  And how lacking in whit are you that you have to use one of the worst possible things that can happen to a person just to make a joke?

Making the Cut: Our Hypocritical Stance on Non-Consensual Genital Modification

You know, a lot of people are going on about how the recent ban on circumcision by a German court violates religious freedom, and to be sure, some courts in the US have been unable to uphold such a ruling on those grounds.

Let me be clear... I support religious practices that don't overtly harm people.  Okay, you might say, where do you draw that line?

Here in the U.S., we obviously don't draw it at the mutilation of a child's genitals.  But we do have express bans on other forms of violence sanctioned by religious texts, such as the stoning of women who have sex out of wedlock [Deuteronomy 22].  In fact, we in the U.S. rail against such literal interpretations of religious texts as practiced in countries under a fundamentalist version of sharia (and we use this as justification for the occupation and destruction of those countries... just sayin'). And we have no problem speaking out against the mutilation of female genitalia in Africa, even though that practice is congruent with religious tradition as well.  Are we so hypocritical in our disdain for religion-induced violence that we only accept the kind practiced by people who live in our neighborhoods and look like us?

Unfortunately the religious freedom card continues to dominate the conversation about circumcision in particular.  But what about the discussion of sexual freedom?  We need to be talking about how the mutilation of child's genitals is a huge sexual rights issue.  When it comes to female genital mutilation, the implications are obvious: no clitoris, no sexual pleasure.  What we don't always realize is that the removal of the male foreskin removes a wealth of nerve endings as well, scarring the penis and removing a lot of sensation.  Obviously the organ can still function enough to perform its "biological task," but what about the quality of that child's future sexual life?

The other socially accepted form of genital mutilation not discussed nearly enough is the mutilation (sometimes called "modification") of organs that are considered "ambiguous" at birth.  Seeing how we all have differently-sized-and-shaped genitalia, I find it ethically repugnant that a parent might opt to have their baby's organs cut to look "more normal" without the child's consent.  Still, I'm sure any parent who's had their child's genitals "modified" for this reason would tell you they thought it was for the best.  After all, we live in a world where only two variations of sex organs are considered acceptable, and parents don't want their kids growing up in a world that might persecute them on the basis of something that can be cut away.  It's amazing, really, that our society is so homophobic and transphobic that parents would rather have their children endure major reconstructive surgery than just leave it be.

By now I've probably offended dozens, and really that's okay.  The non-consensual modification of a person's genitalia is a topic many are passionate about, and many of us have strong opinions one way or another.  But the conversation, so often about either "religious freedom" or "normalizing the child for her/his own sake", misses too many points to not be taken to task.  We can't discuss the above without also taking into account the child's future as a sexual being in charge of her/his own body, and we need to start thinking about the inherent problems with putting things like religious tradition before sexual autonomy.

Vagina

That is all.

Why Birthing Rights Matter to the Pro-Choice Movement

In the more abortion-focused circles of the pro-choice movement, birthing rights often go undiscussed.  My mentions of home birth rights specifically have brought varying responses, from supportive to ambivalent to outright hostile ("Well that is not safe!"). 

But let's be clear about something.  Reproductive justice means that everyone has complete control over if, when, where, how, and with whom they bring a child into the world.  It means that people have accurate, unbiased access to information regarding all facets of their reproductive lives, from contraception to pregnancy options, from practices surrounding birth to parental rights. It means that our choices are not constrained by politics, financial barriers, or social pressure.  In other words, how can the right to give birth at home - safely and legally - not be on a reproductive justice advocate's radar?

I mention this because we in North Carolina are enduring yet another vicious attack on the rights of pregnant and childbearing individuals.  Women seeking home births may have the legal right to do so, but just like the women seeking abortion care, these laws do nothing to protect access.  As far as home birth attendants go, our state only recognizes certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and in order for these phenomenal women to legally attend births, they must be supervised by an MD currently licensed to practice obstetrics in the state.  As you can imagine, physicians that will supervise homebirth CNMs are few and far between, and this week one of them was advised (under threats of sanction) that he cannot sign off on CNMs who are not under his direct employment.  Even though the law does not dictate these terms, the medical board's sanction left seven of our eleven home birth CNMs without a licensing MD, and countless women without a care provider.

The research is abundantly clear: when labor is progressing normally, a woman under the care of a trained midwife is as safe giving birth at home as she would be under the care of an obstetrician in a hospital.

Anti-abortion birth advocates are already taking a hypocritical stance on the matter as they decry abortion rights while asking why women's reproductive decisions are limited.  I've been biting my tongue while reading the Facebook comments of fellow birth professionals all week.  One such statement went, "It is legal to have an abortion but a woman can't choose to have a home birth with a midwife! This is crazy!"  Another, "A mother can kill her baby in all three trimesters but can't give birth at home.  The government is nuts."  [Fact-Check Sidebar: North Carolina restricts abortion access after the 20th week of pregnancy (hardly "all three trimesters"); additionally, this ruling didn't come from the government, it came from the NC Board of Medicine, an agency independent from the state's governing body.]  These ramblings are usually followed by the contradictory co-opting of pro-choice language, ripe with phrases like "right to choose" and "my body, my choice."

The abortion rift amongst birth advocates is really nothing new.  After all, to simply be an advocate for varying birthing options does not encompass any official position on the politics of pregnancy itself.  Birth advocates come to the work for a variety of reasons, while it certainly seems odd to me that a person could support the "right to choose" in one pregnancy outcome but not another, the social stigma surrounding abortion means that this rift is bound to exist. 

That home birth rights are not at the forefront of the reproductive justice movement, on the other hand, is beyond me.  The struggles are just too similar.  Every time someone points out that women might have to cross state lines to access a home birth midwife, I think of the women who still - in the year 2012 - have to seek abortion care in a state with fewer restrictions or more providers.  When we worry that women will have to give birth with midwives who operate illegally (or go unassisted), I think of the women who risked their lives going to see illegal abortion providers with no public credentials, or the women who simply did it themselves.  Medicaid and many private insurers restrict access to home birth midwives just like they restrict access to abortion, making both more or less a privilege to those with the means to pay out of pocket. 

Reproductive justice advocates who are involved in birthing rights see both - the right to an abortion and the right to give birth at home - as the same struggle.  We understand that any assault on reproductive freedom comes from a system of patriarchal self-interest that sees women not as autonomous beings, but as objects to be regulated and "fixed."  We know that any women who choose home birth have done their research and don't need "warnings" from government institutions, just like women seeking abortions don't need the ideological jargon in "Right To Know" legislation.  We know that women and their families are capable of making the best possible decisions regarding the births of their children, and we seek to create a world where access, stigma, and social pressure don't sway these decisions.  In other words, we live up to the full spectrum of our ideology... we Trust Women.

I call on the reproductive justice movement to make birthing rights a part of their pro-choice consciousness.  If we are to create a world that ensures sexual and reproductive well-being for all women and girls, no struggle to protect our choices or desires can go unsupported.

Get Yer Freak On. Doula's Orders.

Today is my May Mama's estimated due date.  Well okay, her original EDD is the 28th, but they pushed it back to today because of imaging.  Which means I'm still considering her to be due on the 28th.

When I talked to her today, she was anxious.  Her last two babies had been born at 39.5 weeks exactly, and going "past" her due date was worrying her.  I reassured her that all babies are born eventually, and besides, as her midwife already said, third babies tend to be the odd ones out.  Old wives' tale, sure, but backed up with years of observation by pretty much every midwife I've ever talked to.

Then, showing my nerd-colors a bit, I reminded her that babies, like wizards, are never late.  They arrive precisely when they mean to. 


We went on to have a good conversation about inducing labor naturally.  And no, I'm not talking about smearing your vag with evening primrose oil or doing shots of castor oil.  I tend to be cautious about those methods when a mama isn't being threatened with medical induction, since they tend to have negative side-effects that are, let's say, unpleasant.

But to simply get things going, I always say, a mama needs to simply have a really good night: get a nice long foot/calf massage, have a half glass of red wine, and have some good sex.  Or as I call it, the Sex, Booze, and Foot Rubs Method.

While the above methods tend to be looked at as mere old wives' tales, there is in fact scientific basis for their use.  And besides, unlike castor oil and assuming we're only recommending a half glass of wine, there is little to no risk of negative side-effects.

Here's why they work!

The Sex

Oxytocin, the so-called "love hormone," is at least partly responsible for three distinct physiological events in a woman's reproductive cycle: orgasm, labor, and breastfeeding.  As a sex-positive doula and lactation educator, you might say that oxytocin is my homegirl.

The female orgasm was once thought of as relatively inconsequential to the reproductive process.  In fact, some fertility specialists have even suggested that orgasm "dilutes" a woman's chance of becoming pregnant.  (I call bullshit.  Also sexism.  But that's another post.)  Au contraire, says a bulk of new-ish research that essentially reaffirms what lay-health workers have been saying for years: orgasm increases your chances of conception.  See, when a woman orgasms, her body releases even more vaginal secretion than she does when simply "aroused," helping to lubricate the sperm's path to the egg.  Additionally, the oxytocin released via orgasm contracts the uterus, lowering the cervix (the "neck" of the uterus) and making the uterus more accepting of a fertilized egg (ever wonder what that tight feeling in your lower abdomen was?).

Sidebar: Oxytocin is also associated
with trust, which helps explain why
women who have good relationships
with their care providers tend to have
smoother labors.

So oxytocin contracts the uterus.  Hence labor.  But the wonder-hormone's job isn't over when the placenta is delivered.  Oxytocin is also responsible for the milk "letting down" during breastfeeding.  See, when a woman first lays eyes on her baby, she's essentially OD'ing on oxytocin, as is baby.  That's the love hormone doing its job.  Baby will hopefully find her/his way to a nipple and begin suckling.  When the nipples are stimulated, oxytocin is released from the posterior pituitary gland, contracting the tiny myoepithelial cells inside the milk ducts, forcing milk out of the breast and into baby's mouth.  That oxytocin release is still doing it's job "down there," helping mama's uterus to clamp down post-delivery, thus reducing risk of excessive postpartum bleeding. 

I mention the connection to breastfeeding because oxytocin is also released with nipple stimulation.  Women who are into nipple stimulation during sex may enjoy it for a number of reasons, but physiologically it's because that burst of oxytocin contracts the uterus (which essentially puts interior pressure on the clitoris and, well, you get it).  In other words, if you're into nip-stim, include that in your labor-inducing sex practice.  Otherwise you can just turn on your breast pump when you're finished doin' the deed, and you will probably get a lot of the same benefits.

If a woman is having sex with a man, his stuff may play a labor-inducing role as well.  Semen contains prostaglandins, autocrine hormones that help to soften ("ripen") the cervix.  A softer cervix makes the fertilization/implantation process more likely, but these hormones work the same when a woman is already pregnant.  The low dose of prostaglandins in semen alone aren't likely to induce labor in a woman who's not yet term (which is why care providers don't warn against sex during pregnancy unless a woman is at risk for preterm labor), but the mild softening in a term mama might just be enough to tip her into labor mode.  As an added bonus, if he's, let's say, "gifted," his penis hitting against the cervix may indeed induce some mild (but not earth-shattering) uterine contractions.

Captain Obvious moment: I generally don't recommend the prostaglandin method if a mama is in a relationship where she's at risk for a sexually transmitted infection.  The last thing she needs is to be infected with an STI right before a baby comes squeezing through her vagina!  If infection is an issue, sex with a condom still contains the benefits of oxytocin and cervical pressure.  Masturbation is a safe and effective alternative for women who don't have a partner (or just simply don't want to engage in partner sex).  Again, oxytocin is stronger than prostaglandins... go team vag!

The Booze

While its use remains controversial amongst even the most alternative midwives, wine in small quantities (a glass or less) is thought to help the mother's body relax through the anxiety that often hinders the body's ability to start labor on its own.  Anxiety leads to the release of catecholamines, the "stress hormone" which interferes with the release of oxytocin.  So while the alcohol itself does not induce labor (it can, in fact, cause vasodilation, which actually hinders labor progress), a bit of wine to "take the edge off" of what ever stress a mama may be experiencing can help things along. 

The Foot Rubs

There are several pressure points in the feet and ankles that, when massaged, may induce uterine contractions.  The first is in the soft area between the achilles tendon and the medial malleolus (the "knotty" bone on the inside of the ankle).  The second is about four finger-widths above the malleolus.  Even if the massage does not actually induce contractions, a nice ankle rub may help with the ankle swelling many women experience as they get further along in pregnancy.

A midwife also once told me that the heel is a reflexology point to the cervix.  In fact, she says, you can often read how effaced (soft) a woman's cervix is by compressing her heel, and can often soften a "tough lip" by rubbing out hard points.  I have no research to back that up, just one midwife's anecdote.

And by now my May Mama has called and said that since I gave her the above information, she's been contracting steadily (but lightly) for the past little while.  So there.  Get yer freak on, doula's orders.