Rant, plus possible TMI

I have a weird cyst-like thing on my boob.  I'm 90% sure it's nothing, but it never hurts to be sure.  So I went to Planned Parenthood, where, thanks to the failed efforts to defund the organization, I was able to get a breast exam for practically nothing.  The NP told me what I thought, that she's 90% sure it was nothing.  But to be safe, maybe we should think about referring me to a specialist.

Now, here I had two choices: trust the NP's 90% judgment, or go ahead with the referral.  What could be the harm, anyway?  So I had PP schedule my appointment with a local specialist for imaging.

Unfortunately, the specialists didn't get rich by offering the low-cost health care that Planned Parenthood offers.  Not having insurance that pays for PREVENTATIVE care, the specialist appointment will run me over $300.  THREE HUNDRED.   

Now, my insurance would cover me if I waited for whatever this thing is to grow and spread and threaten my life, assuming it is something we should be worried about.  They would gladly front the thousands of dollars in cancer treatment in the rare case that that's what this cyst-like thingy is.  But no, we can't have them just tossing checks at early diagnostic or preventative treatment.  Not for the pithy $100 I send them every month.

That's the problem here.  I have $100 to spend on health insurance each month.  That gives me the chance to be covered if I get hit by a truck or if my life is in danger due to some awful disease that I likely wouldn't recover from anyway.  To actually prevent the need for thousands of dollars in health care costs, however, I have to pay the $300 out of pocket.

Sound familiar?  The government's Medicaid program is similar.  It is completely willing to pay (minimal) prenatal and delivery costs for pregnant folks, but ask Medicaid for $300 for an abortion (or a fraction of the cost for a midwife-assisted home birth), and you get jack shit.  They'd rather pay thousands than hundreds, mostly because they know that a person who REALLY needs to come up with the fee will come up with it, even if it means they can't pay for groceries for the next few weeks.

It comes down to ideology, be it capitalist or antichoice, or a mix of both.  Either way, I'm paying that $300 to have my boob looked at, or I'm not and it's nothing anyway so my insurance company doesn't have to pay anyone anything anyhow.  Just like a pregnant person will either find that $300 for an abortion, or she'll use Medicaid for minimal prenatal and pediatric care and the government can continue using statistics about poor women being a drain on society.  Because she had no other choice.  Because no one gave her another choice.

Thing is, I have way more resources than the pregnant person living in public housing with her two kids finding herself pregnant again and unable to pay for groceries.  There's no comparison once you scratch the surface; I can get that $300 way more easily than she can.  My parents, for example.  Or savings.  But it doesn't change the fact that we both could have benefited from the public option that the Democrats abandoned like frightened kittens all because some misled jackass in a Paul Revere costume sat in a lawn chair and held up a sign.

Whatever this thing is, it's nothing.  I know that.  But it doesn't pay to take risks.  The use of growth hormones in our food has given us pre-menopausal breast cancer rates like we've never seen before.  I need to be careful.  I need to be smart.  I need to have it looked at.  It's just too bad that being careful and smart is a privilege reserved for those of us with the financial resources to buy it.  And we can just keep believing that the many women who let those mysterious lumps go unattended are just a "drain" on a society that drained them first.

Last Night's Nums: Stir-Fried Curry Rice Noodles w/ Shrimp

As if I had any doubts about a recipe that involved the words "stir-fry," "curry," and "shrimp!"  And it did not disappoint.  Of course, in true form, I altered the recipe ever so slightly... only slightly, as recipes from America's Test Kitchen are usually perfect just the way they're published.

This dish is pretty easy and not very expensive, especially considering it's a whole meal on its own! I think I already had everything I needed except for the red bell pepper, the rice noodles, and the shrimp.  The shrimp were by far the most expensive ingredient, but I figure this recipe could easily be duplicated with another shellfish, tofu, or even just thinly-sliced potato chunks.  I wouldn't try it with chicken, as it's a pretty delicate curry and works really well with the shrimpy flavor.  Definitely worth the cost, and hey, you only need 12 ounces.

Additionally, this recipe is quick.  I usually shy away from curry recipes when I don't have a sous-chef, but I didn't want to wait until my husband's semester is over to make something like this!  The 20 minutes hot water soak is definitely the most time-consuming part, and the prep work took me less than 10 minutes... plenty of time to pour myself a glass of wine and check my email.  After that it's 2 minutes here, 2 minutes there, a few minutes to finish, and BAM!  Dinner's ready.


Stir-Fried Curry Rice Noodles with Shrimp

8 oz rice stick noodles (about 1/4-inch thick)
1/4 cup water
3 tbsp vegetable oil (You might need more if you're like me and don't use a non-stick skillet.)
3 tablespoons fish sauce
1 tablespoon lime juice
1 tablespoon sugar
1 onion, thinly sliced
1 red bell pepper, seeded and thinly sliced
12 ounces extra-large shrimp, peeled and deveined
4-5 garlic cloves, minced
1 tablespoon red curry paste (Note: The original recipe called for 1 tbsp of curry powder, but I'm an idiot and didn't remember that we were out.  I loved the curry paste, however, and can see the powder method getting a bit "grainy" and dry.)
6 scallions, cut into 1-inch lengths, reserving greens for later
1/2 cups basil (This was my other addition.  Can't have curry noodles without basil!)

Directions

1. Cover noodles with boiling water in bowl. Soak until softened but not completely tender, about 15 - 20 minutes. Drain noodles.
2. Whisk water, 2 tbsp oil, fish sauce, lime juice and sugar until sugar dissolves.
3. Heat remaining oil in large nonstick skillet (I used a large saucier, worked much better because of the depth) over medium heat until shimmering. Cook onion and bell pepper until softened, about 3 minutes.
4. Stir in shrimp, garlic and curry paste. Cook until fragrant and shrimp are nearly cooked through, about 2 minutes.
5. Add scallions, softened noodles and fish sauce mixture. Cook, tossing constantly, until noodles are completely tender and shrimp cooked through, about 2 minutes.
6. Remove from heat.  Add basil and reserved greens (chopped), toss to combine.
7. Pour yourself a glass of white wine and ENJOY!

A Funny Thing Happened at the Planned Parenthood Rally

There are those who believe that everything happens for a reason... as in, the universe works the way it's supposed to, this isn't some sort of pre-destination religious conversation.  Sometimes really cool things happen, and you just know that they were meant to go that way.  If the woman leaving the sew and vac shop had approached anyone else, it might have been completely different.  But she approached me.

I was at a rally for Planned Parenthood at the health center right next to my house.  The Senate is looking at the bill passed by the House last month that would effectively de-fund Planned Parenthood, even though federal funds are already barred from going to abortion services. 

I was leaving.  Many supporters had stayed behind to line the sidewalks, but I had a yoga class to get to.  As I said a final buh-bye to several of the clinic workers that I know, I noticed a woman leaving the sew and vac shop, looking disapprovingly at the gathering of pink-shirted Planned Parenthood supporters.  Our eyes met as I started walking in much the same plane towards my car.  I gave her a smile, the way I do with strangers whose gazes I sometimes catch.  I was going to leave it at that, but she approached me.  "You're young," she started, then lightly touched my shoulder and glanced back at the big pink bus with "I STAND WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD" written in big block letters.  "Have you ever seen a live birth, hun?" 

I was taken aback for a moment.  This could have been anyone, and her obvious attempt at an anti-abortion one-liner could have been about anything.  And yet she approached me.  And her question was about birth.  Specifically, have I ever seen one?

I smiled and looked into her eyes while I fumbled around in my purse.  It could not have been more perfect... like it was meant to happen.  "All the time," I said, smiling, and handed her my card.  She raised her eyebrows in an inquisitive way, likely when she read "Birth Doula."  It was obvious to me, probably to her as well, that I had at the very least made a tiny crack in her idea of what it means to be pro-choice.

Unfortunately, I did have a yoga class to get to, and to be quite honest I didn't have much else to say.  So I said nothing else.  I gave a slight nod, got into my car, and left.  The woman remained in place, looking at the crowd of Planned Parenthood supporters gathered in the parking lot, and put my card into her wallet.

This is one of those moments that happened with Intention.  She Intentionally approached me, she Intentionally asked about birth, and I Intentionally handed her my card that answered her question in ways that she hadn't expected.

I set certain rules for engaging with anti-abortion folks.  If we're friends or colleagues, I don't ever mention it.  If they're wingnuts, I don't befriend them at all, but if they're simply "pro-life" then we can probably get along in most social settings.  I don't have "the argument," by which I mean, I refuse to risk burnout by debating when life begins and all that jazz with someone whose mind is not going to be changed.  However, I hope this woman contacts me.  My card contains phone and email information, and I hope she uses it.

Why?  Because she seemed intrigued.  Because, at least after her initial question, she wasn't trying to "convert" me to her ways of thinking.  Because I feel like I could at least have a real conversation with this person, even if it doesn't change her opinions on abortion or pregnancy prevention.

Not because doulas are awesome (though we are, heh).  But because people who believe in the right to reproductive autonomy are diverse.  We're the exact kind of person you'd expect a pro-choice activist to be; at the same time, we are not at all the kind of person you would think would be pro-choice.  We're young and old, we have kids and we don't, we're all kinds of professions and political identities, we're all gender identities and we fall in love with all kinds of people.  We're cat lovers, we like hip hop and we like Kenny G.  We're nurses and doctors and midwives.  We're students and drop-outs.  We're all races.  We speak every language.  We have all possible experiences with pregnancy and infertility.  We've seen live birth or we haven't.  We like sex or we don't.  We drive pick-up trucks and ride bikes, we practice yoga and we attend church every single week.  We like Jersey Shore and we hate it.  We have PhDs.  We're in the military or someone we love is.  What unites us is the idea that women control their bodies.  We're pro-choice.

If you're the person I gave my card to today in the Planned Parenthood parking lot, please email me.  I want to talk more.

Humanitarian Mathematics

So the U.S. has dropped 110 Tomahawk missiles onto Libya.  At roughly $569,000 a pop, let's go ahead and say our little humanitarian venture cost roughly $62.5million.  Well okay, that's the missiles alone, not factoring in the planes, fuel, service pay and benefits, etc.  Missiles alone, we've exploded about $62.5million into Libya.

The average teacher's salary, obviously a lavish and wasteful way to spend government dollars, is roughly $41,500 per year.  While we simply cannot continue paying them this excessive amount, we did burn through the fiscal equivalent of 1506 teacher salaries in under 24 hours.


NPR runs on $164million/year.  About 5.8% of that comes from government grants to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.  That's about $9.5million per year, from all forms of government (federal, state, and local).  Truly the epitome of government waste, NPR could be funded for 6.5 years with the money spent on the 110 missiles dropped into Libya. 

Everyone knows that women, infants, and children are a huge waste of public funds.  In fact, we spend about $6.7billion per year just feeding these bastards!  Sounds like a lot, right?  Well, when you consider about 9,175,478 women, infants, and children received WIC assistance in 2010, total government assistance through WIC averages around $725 per person per year.  Our humanitarian effort in Libya could have provided nutritional assistance for 86,206 unsupported women with children for one year.

Also, it would only take about 5 more days of this kind of humanitarian expenditure to top Planned Parenthood's annual funding from the federal government. And remember, that's just calculating the missiles dropped.

In Defense of WGS

It's easy to become wholly desensitized to the adage "times are tough" when you're only being affected by proximity.  However, when something dear to your heart comes under attack, it's difficult to know even where to start.

The Wisconsin demonstrations have been nothing short of inspiring, and their plight is indeed the plight of us all.  Additionally, as I read every new development in tsunami-ravaged Japan, I am reminded of how good things are here despite times being so tough.

Still, this is personal: something's up with UNCG's Women's and Gender Studies department, a program of which I am proud to be an alumnus.  I received an email last month informing me that the university is conducting a review of the department.  They wanted to hear from alums, how we're using our degrees, what we've been up to since graduation, etc.  Basically, they want to know that WGS is worth keeping afloat.

I had a feeling this would happen when Charlie's department held a meeting of TAs and lecturers.  It wasn't bad... after all, while they can make severe cuts and put a freeze on hiring, the department of English as an entity isn't going anywhere.  Still, if things are bad enough that the English department is making cuts, I knew WGS and AFS might not be long for this world.

The powers that be want to know how WGS has enabled me to be a productive member of society.  Put simply, I wouldn't be where I was today if it weren't for WGS.  While I would have remained a feminist and a reproductive rights activist, I would not have the broad perspective on what those labels mean if it weren't for the education I received in WGS.  This is not to say it's impossible to be fully aware of gender issues without being enmeshed in academia, but for me, the academy was the institution that led me to action.  I certainly wouldn't be a doula, and by that logic I would not be pursuing the IBCLC.  In essence, WGS put me on the path to help give future generations the best possible start.  You can't put a price tag on that.

Of course, WGS and AFS graduates a small number of students annually.  This might be what the university looks at, but it in and of itself is short-sighted.  WGS and AFS have cross-listed courses in a range of departments and schools.  They offer perspectives that are commonly left out of traditional education, and those perspectives are vital to ensuring a rounded education for the university's student population at large.

A student enrolled in an American history survey course may learn about the 19th Amendment, they may even read a thing or two about Roe v. Wade, but they are not going to gain a full perspective on the lives of women throughout the nation's history without the WGS cross-listed courses.  A student enrolled in an American literature course will likely read Melville, Hawthorne, Hemingway, and maybe a couple of Black authors, but a full perspective on African American literature (to be sure a rich and important facet of American lit) is not likely to be offered in these basic courses, if only due to time constraints.  Religious studies classes on the history of Islam, a highly valuable subject for American students, are already scarce, and will become more so if ethnic studies departments are defunded and erased from course listings.  LGBTQ health issues, a focus all its own, would disappear from UNCG's highly regarded public health department.  Difference would be glossed over, all to save a few bucks.  And in the meantime, UNCG is raising student fees to make athletics more visible and to bulldoze the Glenwood neighborhood.

All this defense, however, really undercuts the point.  WGS and AFS both deserve to continue to exist, and exist with presence, for their own sake.  They are programs based in the humanities, and while we cannot quantify their worth through dollars and cents the way we may be able to do with the Bryan School of Business, money should never be the primary concern of a university's course offerings.  The point of the academy is to exist for its own right, to educate its students, to uplift public discourse around pressing issues, and to offer perspectives that students may never hear in secondary education.

Both WGS and AFS have provided this, not to mention countless events that are free and open to the public to educate our surrounding communities regardless of whether or not they are enrolled students.  WGS and AFS do more than just educate... they shape people's lives.  They host events that raise money and support for food banks, women's shelters, youth programs, and more.  These departments act as public citizens, which is more than we can say for the university's Glenwood bulldozer brigade.

Please consider writing the UNC system to advocate for AFS and WGS.  Small departments that focus on difference are not just vital for those who want to major.  They are vital for the university's diverse populations, for the average student who wants to expand her/his horizons beyond traditional subject matter, and for the communities in which they thrive.

Breastfeeding, Options, and a Tale of Two Michelles

In the wake of a study that suggests formula-fed children are six times as likely to be obese by age three, Michelle Obama has taken up breastfeeding promotion as a main objective of her Let's Move campaign.  According to her spokesperson, the first lady is focusing not on dictating people's infant feeding choices, but instead "trying to make it easier for those who choose to [breastfeed]."

Lower-income, predominately African American communities have the lowest breastfeeding initiation rates, rates that drop even lower to around 20% at six months of age.  Children in these communities are also at the highest risk for infant death and, of course, childhood obesity, both of which breastfeeding is known to curb.  Additionally, women who breastfeed are less likely to develop breast cancer and diabetes later in life, health problems that are both prevalent among African American women.

Surveys have all but confirmed that the abysmal breastfeeding rates in lower-income communities (regardless of race) are mostly due to socioeconomic barriers: women who cannot afford (or locate) a professional lactation consultant are likely to give up breastfeeding when problems arise.  While these problems (sore nipples, engorgement, etc) can make breastfeeding unbearably painful, the assistance of a lactation specialist or consultant often provides a quick and easy fix. Additionally, lower-income women are more likely to have to return to work sooner, and, without appropriate equipment, support, and know-how, many of these women will have to give up breastfeeding all together.  Such a factor played a role in the IRS' recent decision to allow the deduction of breastpumps and other supplies as medical expenses.

Cue the circus of rich folks who are "tired of the government telling them what to do with their bodies."  Take Tea Party favorite Michelle Bachmann, whose reaction to increased accessibility of breastfeeding is probably nothing more than a political stunt: on the Laura Ingraham show, Bachmann railed against the supposed "nanny state" that we are creating by helping women make more autonomous infant feeding decisions.  Bachmann bragged, "I've given birth to five babies and I breast-fed every single one," continuing with, "To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump ... That's the new definition of a nanny state."

Staying home and breastfeeding five babies is all well and good for Michelle Bachmann, but in communities where women are more likely to have to return to work soon after baby is born, laying down $200+ for a decent breast pump is out of the question.  Never mind that many of the jobs these women hold aren't exactly friendly to a mother's pumping needs (a cause which Mrs. Obama has also taken up), even a working mother with an office job is infinitely more able to keep her supply up while at work.  This is simply not the case in retail stores, schools, factories, and service industries.

Of course, to the hard-line conservative, women who cannot breastfeed their children should think twice about that before "choosing" to get pregnant in the first place.  Talk about government control of women's bodies: these are the same people who are currently working to remove Title X funding from family planning clinics, cut funding from supplemental nutrition programs, strike programs that provide prenatal and pediatric care, and of course, limit the accessibility of abortion.  It's almost like they, not the first lady, are the ones dictating what women are and are not able to do with their bodies, from the prevention of pregnancy to their infant feeding choices.

Michelle Obama's call to promote breastfeeding is hardly a question of government intervention.  Women know that breastfeeding is best, and most women want to be able to provide breastmilk for their children.  The problem is not that the government is intervening, but that for many women, continuing to breastfeed is out of the question.  Breaking down barriers, providing education and support, and promoting the healithiest of healthy practices is not just best for our newest citizens, it is in fact a practice that could save billions in medical costs per year.  You'd think these purported "fiscal conservatives" would be down with that... but then, who ever said they were champions of sound logic?

Why Not Celebrating Valentine's Day is Awesome

I'm not going to be one of those self-righteous people who runs around on V-day talking about how "my relationship is so good we don't need a special day to enjoy it," etc etc etc.  While that is most certainly one of the major reasons we don't "do" Valentine's (other than its modern roots as nothing but a way for card companies to make money), I'm assuming most couples who celebrate the day don't really need one, either.  Whether or not a couple is into Valentine's Day shenanigans is really not a valid barometer to measure the state of one's relationship.  But I don't celebrate it, and it works for me.  Here's some good reasons to forgo the occasion all together!

• Ever tried to get a table at a nice restaurant on Valentine's?  I actually have not, but I am well aware of how difficult it is without making a reservation far in advance.  Even if you have a reservation or can get a table, your dining experience is going to be shaped by crowds, grumpy waitstaff, and a rushed meal.  I don't know a single food server who doesn't work every single Valentine's, and from what they've told me, people are lousy tippers on this night in particular.  Probably because they've already spent all their cash on some sort of Kay Jewelers fiasco.  
• Speaking of Kay Jewelers... I love you!  Here's something shiny!  More on the diamond industry in a moment, but what is up with this practice?  I'll let Family Guy elaborate on this tradition.
• Did I mention our modern-day understanding of Valentine's Day is little more than a capitalist venture into the marketing of people's deepest and most personal emotions?  There's that.  But there's more.  Far from just greeting cards, Valentine's Day is a huge money maker for some of the most corrupt, most abusive industries on the planet: chocolate, flowers, and diamonds.  It's just nice to completely avoid supporting these industries on their biggest day of the year.  
• Oye, the heterosexism!  That's right, I said it.  Valentine's Day may be celebrated by couples from a range of relationship styles, gender identities, values, marital statuses, etc, but family diversity is rarely reflected in the cookie-cutter Valentine's products we're offered.  This may just be a merchandising standard, you know, cater to the lowest common denominator, but it gives a totally different message: love is uniform, and deviations from its norm are not acceptable.

Well that's that... I could go on for days (who, me?), but it's Valentine's Day, which means I've got to get busy on my feminist theory reading for Wednesday!