A lot of people don't realize that I am in no way against responsible gun ownership. I'm not a huge fan of the things, but I've shot them and - aside from that incident at summer camp where I accidentally killed a bird - I rather enjoyed the experience.
What I am against, however, are the people who incoherently rail on about the Second Amendment while not being able to tell you what, exactly, the Second Amendment actually says. Or those who evoke said amendment without understanding the context in which it was written, or the reasons why that context is deeply problematic in and of itself.
I am against any discourse that doesn't take into account the mess of white privilege tangled up in every cry for the right to keep and bear firearms. The way we push for armed guards in suburban elementary schools without any mention of the way such guards have impacted inner-city learning institutions, led to increased police brutality within schools, and reinforced the growing school-to-prison pipeline.
I am against the way we explain away mass shootings by white people with simple phrases like "mental illness" while blaming "thuggish" black kids for their own death at the hands of a firearm (and never suggesting they should have been carrying for their own self defense).
Those who look at George Zimmerman and believe he was truly justified in his right to self defense, but make not a peep when Melissa Alexander gets thrown away for firing warning shot near her abusive ex-husband.
Those who co-opt the language of sexual violence prevention only when it suits their pro-gun agenda, coincidentally ignoring the countless instances where possession of a firearm has made women more vulnerable to death from abuse and assault. Not to mention that this idea - that women should carry as "rape prevention" - reinforces rape culture by placing emphasis on me being responsible for protecting myself and not on a collective effort to combat systematic sexual oppression.
Those who don't see how making a case for more gun rights after a tragedy is markedly different from making a case for ways we can keep them from happening again.
Those things. I'm against those things, not gun ownership itself.
And yet, when I bring up any number of these issues, I am summarily accused by my culture's blind affinity for dichotomy of being "against responsible gun ownership." Of being a "bleeding heart liberal who wants big government to take away my rights."
I'm done with it. I am so tired of the dichotomy, of being put into defense mode, of feeling the need to relive the night I was nearly raped just to get my point across, of having my commitment to individual freedom called into question by folks with no visible care for collective justice.
So this is my final statement on the matter, one that I will probably be copy/pasting for years to come: I have no problem with your right to purchase and keep a firearm. I have a problem with you not recognizing the ways in which your arguments are ignorant, short-sighted, and oppressive.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, April 8, 2013
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Equality, assimilationist, and other buzzwords trolling my feed today
I've been trying to put into words my feelings on all these red equal
signs and greater-than signs popping up on my feed all day, so I thought
I'd share my thoughts on what appears to be an ingrown divide.
I was married once. And no, it didn't contribute to my liberation at all. It did, however, make living in this society a little bit easier. Filing taxes jointly, knowing I was assured health benefits and hospital visitation rights, and other protections I gained by enmeshing myself in that institution were all lovely privileges that I was thankful to have at my fingertips. I was also looked at differently: I was an adult woman living with an adult man, and we were married. There was more approval of our relationship, of the way we were living. It was more palatable to our society's views on relationships and love. Problematic at its core? Oh hell yes. Easier? You betcha.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any actual member of the LGBTQI community who actually thinks the right to marry will ensure total liberation for them or anyone they know. Sure, the neo-liberal tendencies in the more powerful lobbies make it seem that way. But their proponents know as much as the most radical queer motherfucker out there that the right to marry isn't about to solve the nation's health care crisis, combat institutionalized racism, end bullying, or provide housing for countless homeless queer youths. But I also don't believe their personal desire to enter into that institution sets anyone back; far from it, it is our short-sightedness on the issue that holds us back, not granting the right to those who wish to access it.
It's easy to look at this whole thing and write it off as some big movement to make every queer person look like a gay June Cleaver. The "assimilationist model" is indeed problematic, however, that you are so willing to dismiss a push for the right to marry as "totally assimilationist" is divisive and hurtful as well.
Is it possible that, for many same-sex couples living without radical separatist bubbles to call their own, a societal affirmation of their relationship will help make living their lives a little bit easier?
Press on for radical, ground-breaking change, YES. We should do that ceaselessly and without apology. You may say marriage is an oppressive institution fraught with conservative ideology, and I may partially agree with you, but still... what's really the harm in granting others the right to marry if they so choose?
I was married once. And no, it didn't contribute to my liberation at all. It did, however, make living in this society a little bit easier. Filing taxes jointly, knowing I was assured health benefits and hospital visitation rights, and other protections I gained by enmeshing myself in that institution were all lovely privileges that I was thankful to have at my fingertips. I was also looked at differently: I was an adult woman living with an adult man, and we were married. There was more approval of our relationship, of the way we were living. It was more palatable to our society's views on relationships and love. Problematic at its core? Oh hell yes. Easier? You betcha.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any actual member of the LGBTQI community who actually thinks the right to marry will ensure total liberation for them or anyone they know. Sure, the neo-liberal tendencies in the more powerful lobbies make it seem that way. But their proponents know as much as the most radical queer motherfucker out there that the right to marry isn't about to solve the nation's health care crisis, combat institutionalized racism, end bullying, or provide housing for countless homeless queer youths. But I also don't believe their personal desire to enter into that institution sets anyone back; far from it, it is our short-sightedness on the issue that holds us back, not granting the right to those who wish to access it.
It's easy to look at this whole thing and write it off as some big movement to make every queer person look like a gay June Cleaver. The "assimilationist model" is indeed problematic, however, that you are so willing to dismiss a push for the right to marry as "totally assimilationist" is divisive and hurtful as well.
Is it possible that, for many same-sex couples living without radical separatist bubbles to call their own, a societal affirmation of their relationship will help make living their lives a little bit easier?
Press on for radical, ground-breaking change, YES. We should do that ceaselessly and without apology. You may say marriage is an oppressive institution fraught with conservative ideology, and I may partially agree with you, but still... what's really the harm in granting others the right to marry if they so choose?
Monday, October 29, 2012
The Wolf or the Fox? Or, why I voted 3rd party 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.
Monday, September 3, 2012
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:
Your Friendly Full-Spectrum Doula,
Lauren
------------------------
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.
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
Your Friendly Full-Spectrum Doula,
Lauren
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
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!!!!"
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.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
So this gay marriage thing...
So I was going to write this long, drawn-out piece on the limitations of confining the entire LGBTQ liberation movement into "same-sex marriage." I was going to go off about Obama's "convenient" announcement yesterday that he now supports same-sex marriage. And to stave off accusations of total negativity, I was also going to tie in the silver lining: that NC's Amendment 1 has ignited a movement that is focusing on issues far broader than "marriage equality," that its passage has turned normal, everyday people from pro-equality voters to activists for complete uncompromising social justice.
But then I read this piece at Black Girl Dangerous and realized Mia McKenzie says it better than I could ever hope to...
Obama Loves Queers! (Except Not)
But then I read this piece at Black Girl Dangerous and realized Mia McKenzie says it better than I could ever hope to...
Obama Loves Queers! (Except Not)
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The Politics of EC
At risk of sounding like a Plan B commercial, things don't always go as planned. The single most prepared and educated individuals can have a condom break, or hell, get lost in the heat of the moment and fail to use one at all. While the latter certainly indicates a higher lack of preparedness (or common sense), the point is this: people who engage in vaginal intercourse - be they married or single, monogamous or not, teenaged or adult, using condoms or on the pill or neither - are at risk for a situation that could lead to an unintended pregnancy.
While emergency contraception (trade names "Plan B" or "Next Choice," aka "the morning-after pill") has only been FDA approved since 1999, health care providers have been cutting up contraception pill packs for the exact same purpose since the 1980s. The drug was made available to women over 18 without a prescription in 2006, then, in 2009, the FDA arbitrarily approved the drug for OTC use for women 17 and older.
Fast forward to last week, when "pro-woman" HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overrode an FDA recommendation to make emergency contraception OTC for all. A political move indeed, likely stemming from the fact that we are approaching an election year, and let's face it, Sebelius is "Obama's Girl."
We've heard the cries of disapproval from every anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-sex activist out there: "It will make young girls engage in sex at a younger age." "Women will start using it as their only form of birth control." "It causes early abortions." "It will turn the country into a 24/7 orgy," and so on and so forth.
I'm not about to spend a lot of time refuting these claims, sighting the ways we know that making contraception available to teens does not lead to earlier sexual contact, how it makes no sense to take a $35 pill every time you have sex instead of going on OCs for $20 a month, how it does not cause "early abortions," etc. What I will spend some time on, however, are the reasons the mainstream population allows themselves to be swayed by the Christian Right's barrage of anti-sexuality bullshit.
It comes down to a conversation I had with my dad over Thanksgiving. Neither of us had any clue that the FDA was considering OTC status for emergency contraception at the time. I believe I was going on about how securing a prescription for Plan B involved little more than a 5 minute conversation with an advance practice clinician about your family history, and no, the girl's parents did not have to sign off on it, at least not in North Carolina.
While relatively conservative, my dad has a more progressive outlook on some social issues, and birth control seems to be one of them. However, he seemed shaken by the fact that a 15 year old girl could walk into a Planned Parenthood, talk with a nurse practitioner, and walk away with Plan B without her parents ever knowing. My first reaction would have been to accuse him of being a typical anti-woman wingnut, though he's my dad and I know he's really not a raging misogynist. Such a disconnect led me to take a moment to process exactly what his major objection could be.
Then it hit me.
Dad is a 62 year old man with a daughter who was 15 a mere twelve years ago. When he pictures a 15 year old girl, he pictures his daughter: an awkward string bean of a high schooler who, in his mind, has absolutely no interest in dating, let alone sex. When he pictures that 15 year old procuring Plan B, the thought is horrifying. That girl is, after all, someone's daughter.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, I picture a 15 year old girl and I see one of my teens. They've had a condom break (or didn't use one at all), or maybe they forgot to take their pill or get their Depo shot. Now is no time to tell them that they shouldn't have been doing whatever they were doing to get themselves into that situation. That conversation can be had after they get their EC, and if it's one of my teens, you know we'll be having it. "You were drinking and didn't know what you were doing? Tell me what's wrong with that." "You didn't use a condom? Why on earth... we have a giant bucket right here in the office." "Condoms break, yes... it's rare but it happens. Do you want to talk about an IUD or another method?" "What can we do to help you remember to take your pill? Have you thought about the NuvaRing, or maybe an Implanon?" Nowhere in the above scenarios do I think for even a second that I can change what's already happened, nor do I believe that having made EC available will make them more likely to do it again.
Then I started thinking into the future. Will I become one of those moms who used to be uber sex-positive but now has a kid who she doesn't want to admit is a sexual being? Let's be real... kids are humans. Humans are sexual. There is no "sex switch" that gets flipped on when you turn 18 (or when you get married... but that's a whole other post). We don't like to talk about it, but children masturbate. I was just having a conversation with a friend who told me that her two year old son gets an erection when he nurses; the thought horrified me for about 2 seconds until I checked myself and realized that it's not at all weird... it's a normal biological response to a place of extreme comfort and happiness.
It makes us so uncomfortable to think of kids, especially our own, being sexual beings, but ignoring it (or trying to "save them" from their inherent nature as a living breathing human) is hardly going to change that. If anything, it makes things worse. Too many times young girls fail to ask for EC because they're embarrassed, or they think they need their parents' permission, or they can't afford it, or they don't even know it's available to them. That doesn't make them stop having sex... it makes them more likely to face an unintended pregnancy and have their childhood come to a screeching halt. If all we have to do to keep that from happening is toss our ridiculous notions of "the virtuous child" out the door, well, I think we owe them at least that much.
While emergency contraception (trade names "Plan B" or "Next Choice," aka "the morning-after pill") has only been FDA approved since 1999, health care providers have been cutting up contraception pill packs for the exact same purpose since the 1980s. The drug was made available to women over 18 without a prescription in 2006, then, in 2009, the FDA arbitrarily approved the drug for OTC use for women 17 and older.
Fast forward to last week, when "pro-woman" HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overrode an FDA recommendation to make emergency contraception OTC for all. A political move indeed, likely stemming from the fact that we are approaching an election year, and let's face it, Sebelius is "Obama's Girl."
We've heard the cries of disapproval from every anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-sex activist out there: "It will make young girls engage in sex at a younger age." "Women will start using it as their only form of birth control." "It causes early abortions." "It will turn the country into a 24/7 orgy," and so on and so forth.
I'm not about to spend a lot of time refuting these claims, sighting the ways we know that making contraception available to teens does not lead to earlier sexual contact, how it makes no sense to take a $35 pill every time you have sex instead of going on OCs for $20 a month, how it does not cause "early abortions," etc. What I will spend some time on, however, are the reasons the mainstream population allows themselves to be swayed by the Christian Right's barrage of anti-sexuality bullshit.
It comes down to a conversation I had with my dad over Thanksgiving. Neither of us had any clue that the FDA was considering OTC status for emergency contraception at the time. I believe I was going on about how securing a prescription for Plan B involved little more than a 5 minute conversation with an advance practice clinician about your family history, and no, the girl's parents did not have to sign off on it, at least not in North Carolina.
While relatively conservative, my dad has a more progressive outlook on some social issues, and birth control seems to be one of them. However, he seemed shaken by the fact that a 15 year old girl could walk into a Planned Parenthood, talk with a nurse practitioner, and walk away with Plan B without her parents ever knowing. My first reaction would have been to accuse him of being a typical anti-woman wingnut, though he's my dad and I know he's really not a raging misogynist. Such a disconnect led me to take a moment to process exactly what his major objection could be.
Then it hit me.
Dad is a 62 year old man with a daughter who was 15 a mere twelve years ago. When he pictures a 15 year old girl, he pictures his daughter: an awkward string bean of a high schooler who, in his mind, has absolutely no interest in dating, let alone sex. When he pictures that 15 year old procuring Plan B, the thought is horrifying. That girl is, after all, someone's daughter.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, I picture a 15 year old girl and I see one of my teens. They've had a condom break (or didn't use one at all), or maybe they forgot to take their pill or get their Depo shot. Now is no time to tell them that they shouldn't have been doing whatever they were doing to get themselves into that situation. That conversation can be had after they get their EC, and if it's one of my teens, you know we'll be having it. "You were drinking and didn't know what you were doing? Tell me what's wrong with that." "You didn't use a condom? Why on earth... we have a giant bucket right here in the office." "Condoms break, yes... it's rare but it happens. Do you want to talk about an IUD or another method?" "What can we do to help you remember to take your pill? Have you thought about the NuvaRing, or maybe an Implanon?" Nowhere in the above scenarios do I think for even a second that I can change what's already happened, nor do I believe that having made EC available will make them more likely to do it again.
Then I started thinking into the future. Will I become one of those moms who used to be uber sex-positive but now has a kid who she doesn't want to admit is a sexual being? Let's be real... kids are humans. Humans are sexual. There is no "sex switch" that gets flipped on when you turn 18 (or when you get married... but that's a whole other post). We don't like to talk about it, but children masturbate. I was just having a conversation with a friend who told me that her two year old son gets an erection when he nurses; the thought horrified me for about 2 seconds until I checked myself and realized that it's not at all weird... it's a normal biological response to a place of extreme comfort and happiness.
It makes us so uncomfortable to think of kids, especially our own, being sexual beings, but ignoring it (or trying to "save them" from their inherent nature as a living breathing human) is hardly going to change that. If anything, it makes things worse. Too many times young girls fail to ask for EC because they're embarrassed, or they think they need their parents' permission, or they can't afford it, or they don't even know it's available to them. That doesn't make them stop having sex... it makes them more likely to face an unintended pregnancy and have their childhood come to a screeching halt. If all we have to do to keep that from happening is toss our ridiculous notions of "the virtuous child" out the door, well, I think we owe them at least that much.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
NC General Assembly overrides veto, defunds Planned Parenthood
There are numerous reasons North Carolina residents should be angry this morning. If you are a teacher, a parent of a child in public school, a college student, a state employee, a woman, uninsured, lower-income, a person with mental illness, an infant, or a health worker, yesterday's late-night veto override of the state budget affects you.
Five Democrats joined the Republican majority in the override. I could go on and on about all the ways that this budget is, pardon my language, royally fucked, but I need to focus primarily on the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Despite the fact that 57% of NC voters support state funding for Planned Parenthood, the GOP has used its majority, once again, to enact an ideology. With this budget, the GOP is waging class warfare against the most underserved communities, not just in its defunding of low-cost health clinics, but in its major cuts to education and human services as well. Don't even get me started on what this means for state employees (predominately lower-income people of color).
But I digress. This entry is about Planned Parenthood.
Last night's vote basically removes Planned Parenthood's ability to be a Title X provider. They are now no longer eligible to receive grants from the Women's Health Services Fund or the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiatives program.
I have been a regular client of my local Planned Parenthood clinic for four years. I have received annual pap smears, regular physical exams, low-cost birth control, and a very inexpensive breast exam that one time I found a strange lump. Not one of these visits ever put me in the poor house even though my health insurance doesn't cover me unless I get hit by a bus. Hell, they even did a strep throat test for me this one time I was on call for a birth and thought I was getting sick.
I have friends who have received all that and more from Planned Parenthood clinics. They've gotten STD testing and treatment. They've had cervical cancer screenings. They've gotten pregnancy tests and options counseling. They've had abortions. They've received referrals for low-cost prenatal care.
If this is what our General Assembly really thinks the state wants, they have another thing coming. There are too many of us who have received quality health care that they can afford, in part due to the state's funding of Planned Parenthood through the health block grants that they are now ineligible to receive. We will see the results of this, and fast. Sweeping cuts to education, massive lay-offs in the government sector, rampant attacks on the environment, cuts to WIC programs, and of course the lack of low-cost health care outside of county-run health departments resinate with far too many NC residents for us to just sit back and take it.
The question now is, what are we going to do about it?
Five Democrats joined the Republican majority in the override. I could go on and on about all the ways that this budget is, pardon my language, royally fucked, but I need to focus primarily on the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Despite the fact that 57% of NC voters support state funding for Planned Parenthood, the GOP has used its majority, once again, to enact an ideology. With this budget, the GOP is waging class warfare against the most underserved communities, not just in its defunding of low-cost health clinics, but in its major cuts to education and human services as well. Don't even get me started on what this means for state employees (predominately lower-income people of color).
But I digress. This entry is about Planned Parenthood.
Last night's vote basically removes Planned Parenthood's ability to be a Title X provider. They are now no longer eligible to receive grants from the Women's Health Services Fund or the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiatives program.
I have been a regular client of my local Planned Parenthood clinic for four years. I have received annual pap smears, regular physical exams, low-cost birth control, and a very inexpensive breast exam that one time I found a strange lump. Not one of these visits ever put me in the poor house even though my health insurance doesn't cover me unless I get hit by a bus. Hell, they even did a strep throat test for me this one time I was on call for a birth and thought I was getting sick.
I have friends who have received all that and more from Planned Parenthood clinics. They've gotten STD testing and treatment. They've had cervical cancer screenings. They've gotten pregnancy tests and options counseling. They've had abortions. They've received referrals for low-cost prenatal care.
If this is what our General Assembly really thinks the state wants, they have another thing coming. There are too many of us who have received quality health care that they can afford, in part due to the state's funding of Planned Parenthood through the health block grants that they are now ineligible to receive. We will see the results of this, and fast. Sweeping cuts to education, massive lay-offs in the government sector, rampant attacks on the environment, cuts to WIC programs, and of course the lack of low-cost health care outside of county-run health departments resinate with far too many NC residents for us to just sit back and take it.
The question now is, what are we going to do about it?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
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?
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.
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?
Monday, January 10, 2011
Rep. Giffords, Violence, and Moral Culpability
In the wake of the tragic shooting in Arizona, I believe another discussion of violent rhetoric is in order.
First off: no one is saying that Sarah Palin, Jesse Kelly, or the Tea Party Movement pulled the trigger. No one is demanding these people be found guilty of any legal wrongdoing. We are not blaming the act, in its entirety, on anything said by Glenn Beck or another Fox News talking head. Though, I'm sure the above people/organizations will find a way to spin it so that it sounds like we are accusing them of such, just like Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that pro-choice groups said he was responsible for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller in 2009. They will claim that we are "exploiting the tragedy" for "political gain," that we are just looking for a new way to demonize the all-powerful Tea Party Movement, all the while excusing themselves 100% from believing that anything they have said or done could have helped to foster an environment where someone would commit such an act.
No, Sarah Palin did not necessarily say "go shoot someone" with her crosshairs map. Jesse Kelly did not technically endorse gunning down Rep. Giffords when he said "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office ... Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly." Glenn Beck has not been endorsing actual gun violence with his continued rhetoric of "taking back the government by force." Not a single one of these individuals ran up to Giffords and pulled the trigger, nor did they personally put Loughner up to the task. But that doesn't mean they have not helped to cultivate an environment where something like this could happen. Does it mean they are legally liable and should be charged as accessories to murder? No. Does it mean they should be taken to task for their role in fostering such an environment through continued violent and inflammatory rhetoric? Absolutely.
We must be guarded when we use phrases like "isolated incident," as in truth there is no such thing. Each and every individual, especially those who would go so far beyond the customary range of human behavior, acts in response to social cues. Not one of us lives in a vacuum free from societal influence, and while we cannot (and will not) claim that Sarah Palin is legally liable for Sunday's shooting, we can (and must) discuss the concept of moral culpability.
It is indeed an "ultra-liberal" way of thinking, though I shutter to use the L word here. Indeed, it is a manner of thinking that leads us to ask why the high school drop-out robbed the convenience store, why the single mother sold her body for cash, why the student drugged and raped his date, and of course, why the young man unloaded an automatic weapon at an Arizona constituents event. The answers give us some insight into the wrongdoer's life, giving us a bit of sympathy for their situation, if only for a moment.
In turn, we are labeled "bleeding-heart" and "soft on crime." However, nothing could be further from the truth: while we ask why, we don't do it to excuse the crime itself. We ask these questions because we know that there is no such thing as an "isolated incident." We ask because we know that there will be others in the same situation, and those others are going to be inclined to behave in a similar manner. We ask because we know that we as a society can do better, because we're not prepared to believe that some people are "just bad eggs."
To say that some are "just bad eggs" is like saying "girls just like pink," or "boys just like toy cars." We know that's bullshit, that girls like pink and boys like cars because they're told to, and that their budding preferences are reinforced by parents, television, friends, etc. The same goes for people like Loughner, people who might already be "unstable" and frustrated, and then just need to interpret an influential figure's words as the go-ahead for violence. This is something the Palins of the world don't seem to have figured out, or at least don't want to admit: actions have consequences.
It is never okay to use violent rhetoric against another person, no matter how innocuous it may seem. This is all very easily spun as "they think Palin caused the shooting," but whatever. I would rather be a "bleeding-heart" who asks why than the kind of person who incites violence then turns the other way when something tragic happens.
First off: no one is saying that Sarah Palin, Jesse Kelly, or the Tea Party Movement pulled the trigger. No one is demanding these people be found guilty of any legal wrongdoing. We are not blaming the act, in its entirety, on anything said by Glenn Beck or another Fox News talking head. Though, I'm sure the above people/organizations will find a way to spin it so that it sounds like we are accusing them of such, just like Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that pro-choice groups said he was responsible for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller in 2009. They will claim that we are "exploiting the tragedy" for "political gain," that we are just looking for a new way to demonize the all-powerful Tea Party Movement, all the while excusing themselves 100% from believing that anything they have said or done could have helped to foster an environment where someone would commit such an act.
It is indeed an "ultra-liberal" way of thinking, though I shutter to use the L word here. Indeed, it is a manner of thinking that leads us to ask why the high school drop-out robbed the convenience store, why the single mother sold her body for cash, why the student drugged and raped his date, and of course, why the young man unloaded an automatic weapon at an Arizona constituents event. The answers give us some insight into the wrongdoer's life, giving us a bit of sympathy for their situation, if only for a moment.
In turn, we are labeled "bleeding-heart" and "soft on crime." However, nothing could be further from the truth: while we ask why, we don't do it to excuse the crime itself. We ask these questions because we know that there is no such thing as an "isolated incident." We ask because we know that there will be others in the same situation, and those others are going to be inclined to behave in a similar manner. We ask because we know that we as a society can do better, because we're not prepared to believe that some people are "just bad eggs."
To say that some are "just bad eggs" is like saying "girls just like pink," or "boys just like toy cars." We know that's bullshit, that girls like pink and boys like cars because they're told to, and that their budding preferences are reinforced by parents, television, friends, etc. The same goes for people like Loughner, people who might already be "unstable" and frustrated, and then just need to interpret an influential figure's words as the go-ahead for violence. This is something the Palins of the world don't seem to have figured out, or at least don't want to admit: actions have consequences.
It is never okay to use violent rhetoric against another person, no matter how innocuous it may seem. This is all very easily spun as "they think Palin caused the shooting," but whatever. I would rather be a "bleeding-heart" who asks why than the kind of person who incites violence then turns the other way when something tragic happens.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Zero Tolerance Zone
Instead of "new year's resolutions," I've decided to simply compile a list of five things I resolve to not tolerate this year, mostly for my personal sanity.
This isn't a list of "bad -isms." I haven't ever tolerated sexism, racism, classism, bodyism, etc, at least not in recent memory. And while I could certainly make one of these about people and concepts that fuel the fires of said -isms, I blog enough about those to already have a pretty clear picture of how I will/will not tolerate such activities.
This is for myself, for clarity. I am not trying to attack any individual, at least not one that's likely to know about and subsequently read this blog. I am certainly not trying to accuse or attack any friends of mine; perhaps I have some constructive criticisms regarding the way we treat social issues, but that is in no way intended to be an attack.
So here they are... things I will not be tolerating in the coming year:
1) Anti-Birth Sentiment, Militant Child-Free Folks, and the Overpopulation Brigade.
This refers to so-called "pro-choice" individuals who oppose a person's right to carry a pregnancy to term, whether it was planned or not, and to birth without stigma. This includes folks who might otherwise be considering abortion: maybe they are in high school, are putting their big dreams on hold due to the pregnancy/baby, people who may have a substance abuse problem, single women, etc. I am including here my belief that pregnant people have the right to call the pregnancy what they want without being "corrected." You're not pro-choice if you don't believe in the right to explore all options, and you're doing the movement a grave disservice by assuming women might be "caving" to anti-choice pressure when they decide against abortion.
2) The Holier-Than-Thou Radicals
As an activist, I think I've been pretty lucky to have encountered very few of this type, and have never organized alongside one directly. But you see them... at marches, rallies, in fleeting appearances at meetings (only when they show up to say they won't be attending your meetings because you're "too reformist"). They don't ever really organize... they just criticize. They won't work with people with even slightly different views or methodologies, and they seem to only exist to denounce the efforts of organizers who are actually doing something. Come to think of it, I've never really tolerated this type, but I wanted to make it clear.
3) Undeserved Total Denouncement
Now here I actually am speaking about a number of people I have worked alongside, people I consider to be friends, and people I respect in many other ways. The foremost example that comes to mind is Jon Stewart. While there were issues with the Daily Show's Sanity Rally, I have said that, while it didn't stand for everything, it also did not stand for nothing. No, Jon Stewart is not a champion of social justice movements, he doesn't stand for deviation from the status quo, and he's not likely to solely build a productive movement to counter all the BS we're in right now. Nor does he claim to be.
That being said, as a person and commentator, Jon Stewart does not deserve to be completely written off. I feel like a lot of people have chosen to do so, citing the obvious problems in his ideology (an ideology he does not claim to be revolutionary, by the way). However, if there is one figure in popular culture capable of reaching an entire generation of left-leaning young people, it's Jon Stewart. Not only that, but the way he and the Daily Show's staff takes to task our political system, the media cycle, and the need for discontent in both should not be completely shunned or denounced. In his outlet, he asks some tough questions, he points out hypocrisy, and he actively promotes critical thought. That is nothing to ignore, even if we may have deeper ideological differences.
Jon Stewart is not the only one who has had undeserved total denouncement thrown at him from the Left. And I believe that is unfortunate: you are unlikely to find popular figures who are 100% on board with your beliefs, and if someone comes up who promotes dissent in a forum that speaks to a large number of left-leaners, you can't just write them off point-blank. A discussion of your ideological differences can then ensue, and so long as you don't make it stand-offish or aggressive, you can probably get a pretty good rapport going with a wider base of people.
4) Defense of Julian Assange
I've said it before: Assange is not WikiLeaks. We should defend WikiLeaks and its right to exist. However, as the evidence mounts against Assange, and as Assange shows his true colors, no movement that claims to be anti-sexist can ignore the very serious actions Assange is being accused of. And yet, so many liberals and Leftists alike seem to be doing it, from mainstream Keith Olbermann to activist Jennifer Van Bergen. And while both simultaneously give lip-service to the denouncement of rape during their defense of Assange, their framing of the Assange situation continues to put the rape allegations on the backburner, continuing the centuries-long trend of treating sexual assault as a conditional offense.
I'll just say this: the media and world governments want us to link WikiLeaks and Assange inextricably. But they are different. WikiLeaks may have been founded by Assange, but it can continue without him. You can denounce Assange as a person while defending WikiLeaks. It is imperative that we do so.
5) Method Elitism
There was a time when I railed against those who worked primarily in everyday actions. By which I mean, folks who don't organize mass movements or attend every single rally, but instead live their lives as a person who changes the world on a person-by-person basis.
After meeting some amazing people who work 60+ hours a week toward the same ends as my organizing, I realize this form of activism has a place. Not only does it have a place... it is an integral facet of our very diverse movement. These are not people who sold out and stepped down to a gig in the nonprofit industrial complex; these are people whose gift is in the individual, the every day. These are folks who change the world daily, maybe in a nonprofit, maybe just in their personal lives. I've learned that this is a respectable form of activism, and in fact one I have recently decided to try out for myself. These folks haven't given up on their ideals; they have just found new ways to implement them through total embodiment.
Now to clarify what I mean by "will not tolerate." When we hear someone will not tolerate something, we think of aggression and severed ties. When I say it, though, I mean quite the opposite: I will not lash out, I will not become aggressive, and I will not be unforgiving. Taking things inward over the past few months has taught me that it is possible to be at peace with the world as it is while still fighting for much-needed change. But I know I cannot simply stay quiet when these things come up. That would be me being at peace without demanding change, and that's the last thing the Left (and the world as a whole) needs right now. We have a status quo, too, and we do ourselves a disservice by never examining ourselves when things aren't going all that well. How does that saying go... the true mark of madness is to keep doing the same things expecting different results. At least, that is indeed a good way to go mad.
By "will not tolerate," I simply mean I will try to engage in these discussions more often, where I feel I have previously been relatively silent on these matters. When I don't talk about it, they grate at me, and I've found I begin harboring silent resentment towards people I should be trying to strengthen my bonds with. Which, of course, is not healthy.
So there it is... my Zero Tolerance Zone for 2011.
This isn't a list of "bad -isms." I haven't ever tolerated sexism, racism, classism, bodyism, etc, at least not in recent memory. And while I could certainly make one of these about people and concepts that fuel the fires of said -isms, I blog enough about those to already have a pretty clear picture of how I will/will not tolerate such activities.
This is for myself, for clarity. I am not trying to attack any individual, at least not one that's likely to know about and subsequently read this blog. I am certainly not trying to accuse or attack any friends of mine; perhaps I have some constructive criticisms regarding the way we treat social issues, but that is in no way intended to be an attack.
So here they are... things I will not be tolerating in the coming year:
1) Anti-Birth Sentiment, Militant Child-Free Folks, and the Overpopulation Brigade.
This refers to so-called "pro-choice" individuals who oppose a person's right to carry a pregnancy to term, whether it was planned or not, and to birth without stigma. This includes folks who might otherwise be considering abortion: maybe they are in high school, are putting their big dreams on hold due to the pregnancy/baby, people who may have a substance abuse problem, single women, etc. I am including here my belief that pregnant people have the right to call the pregnancy what they want without being "corrected." You're not pro-choice if you don't believe in the right to explore all options, and you're doing the movement a grave disservice by assuming women might be "caving" to anti-choice pressure when they decide against abortion.
2) The Holier-Than-Thou Radicals
As an activist, I think I've been pretty lucky to have encountered very few of this type, and have never organized alongside one directly. But you see them... at marches, rallies, in fleeting appearances at meetings (only when they show up to say they won't be attending your meetings because you're "too reformist"). They don't ever really organize... they just criticize. They won't work with people with even slightly different views or methodologies, and they seem to only exist to denounce the efforts of organizers who are actually doing something. Come to think of it, I've never really tolerated this type, but I wanted to make it clear.
3) Undeserved Total Denouncement
Now here I actually am speaking about a number of people I have worked alongside, people I consider to be friends, and people I respect in many other ways. The foremost example that comes to mind is Jon Stewart. While there were issues with the Daily Show's Sanity Rally, I have said that, while it didn't stand for everything, it also did not stand for nothing. No, Jon Stewart is not a champion of social justice movements, he doesn't stand for deviation from the status quo, and he's not likely to solely build a productive movement to counter all the BS we're in right now. Nor does he claim to be.
That being said, as a person and commentator, Jon Stewart does not deserve to be completely written off. I feel like a lot of people have chosen to do so, citing the obvious problems in his ideology (an ideology he does not claim to be revolutionary, by the way). However, if there is one figure in popular culture capable of reaching an entire generation of left-leaning young people, it's Jon Stewart. Not only that, but the way he and the Daily Show's staff takes to task our political system, the media cycle, and the need for discontent in both should not be completely shunned or denounced. In his outlet, he asks some tough questions, he points out hypocrisy, and he actively promotes critical thought. That is nothing to ignore, even if we may have deeper ideological differences.
Jon Stewart is not the only one who has had undeserved total denouncement thrown at him from the Left. And I believe that is unfortunate: you are unlikely to find popular figures who are 100% on board with your beliefs, and if someone comes up who promotes dissent in a forum that speaks to a large number of left-leaners, you can't just write them off point-blank. A discussion of your ideological differences can then ensue, and so long as you don't make it stand-offish or aggressive, you can probably get a pretty good rapport going with a wider base of people.
4) Defense of Julian Assange
I've said it before: Assange is not WikiLeaks. We should defend WikiLeaks and its right to exist. However, as the evidence mounts against Assange, and as Assange shows his true colors, no movement that claims to be anti-sexist can ignore the very serious actions Assange is being accused of. And yet, so many liberals and Leftists alike seem to be doing it, from mainstream Keith Olbermann to activist Jennifer Van Bergen. And while both simultaneously give lip-service to the denouncement of rape during their defense of Assange, their framing of the Assange situation continues to put the rape allegations on the backburner, continuing the centuries-long trend of treating sexual assault as a conditional offense.
I'll just say this: the media and world governments want us to link WikiLeaks and Assange inextricably. But they are different. WikiLeaks may have been founded by Assange, but it can continue without him. You can denounce Assange as a person while defending WikiLeaks. It is imperative that we do so.
5) Method Elitism
There was a time when I railed against those who worked primarily in everyday actions. By which I mean, folks who don't organize mass movements or attend every single rally, but instead live their lives as a person who changes the world on a person-by-person basis.
After meeting some amazing people who work 60+ hours a week toward the same ends as my organizing, I realize this form of activism has a place. Not only does it have a place... it is an integral facet of our very diverse movement. These are not people who sold out and stepped down to a gig in the nonprofit industrial complex; these are people whose gift is in the individual, the every day. These are folks who change the world daily, maybe in a nonprofit, maybe just in their personal lives. I've learned that this is a respectable form of activism, and in fact one I have recently decided to try out for myself. These folks haven't given up on their ideals; they have just found new ways to implement them through total embodiment.
Now to clarify what I mean by "will not tolerate." When we hear someone will not tolerate something, we think of aggression and severed ties. When I say it, though, I mean quite the opposite: I will not lash out, I will not become aggressive, and I will not be unforgiving. Taking things inward over the past few months has taught me that it is possible to be at peace with the world as it is while still fighting for much-needed change. But I know I cannot simply stay quiet when these things come up. That would be me being at peace without demanding change, and that's the last thing the Left (and the world as a whole) needs right now. We have a status quo, too, and we do ourselves a disservice by never examining ourselves when things aren't going all that well. How does that saying go... the true mark of madness is to keep doing the same things expecting different results. At least, that is indeed a good way to go mad.
By "will not tolerate," I simply mean I will try to engage in these discussions more often, where I feel I have previously been relatively silent on these matters. When I don't talk about it, they grate at me, and I've found I begin harboring silent resentment towards people I should be trying to strengthen my bonds with. Which, of course, is not healthy.
So there it is... my Zero Tolerance Zone for 2011.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Juan Williams isn't stupid.
No, I don't think NPR should have fired Juan Williams over last week's comments on The O'Reilly Factor. I think NPR should have fired him when he fabricated comments by would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shazad, a huge no-no as any Journalism 101 student could tell you. I think NPR should have fired him when, despite many clear warnings from his employers, he continued to violate the standards of journalistic conduct that NPR holds each of its analysts to. But, seeing how NPR failed to terminate his contract following any of those incidents, ousting him after his highly bigoted comments on the Factor was the next best thing.
Of course, none of this has stopped the talking heads at Fox News from railing on about how Williams' supposed "First Amendment rights" were violated. And of course, Fox News was happy to take in the poor, oppressed Williams and offer him a $2million contract, thus giving us a clear answer to the question, "What does it take to get a job at Fox News?" (In Williams' case, all you have to do is make some bigoted comments on one of their programs and get subsequently fired from what they see as a "liberal think tank.")
The firing issue, my friends, was not just that the comment was inflammatory. The issue was that Juan Williams made an appearance on The O'Reilly Factor as a representative from NPR's analyst team. He was not appearing as an individual, as the screencap on the left shows, but as a contributing journalist from NPR. When you appear on a television program as a representative of your employing agency, you're accountable for what you say and do. This is nothing Williams didn't know. That's just how employment works, period.
Even if Williams had appeared as an individual, NPR's code of ethics expressly prohibits journalists from "participat[ing] in shows, electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis." Whether or not this standard stifles free speech is not the issue; Williams knew this code, he knew he was acting in violation of his employer's policy, and he chose to appear on The O'Reilly Factor anyway.
One could speculate that Williams appeared on the Factor to make inflammatory comments specifically so that his contract with NPR would be terminated. He could have well known that the supposedly "pro-free speech" (read: pro-Islamaphobia) Fox News would play Good Samaritan and offer him, let's face it, a much more lucrative contract.
What's the other issue here? Are we "too politically correct" about Muslims, Islam, and people from the Middle East? Is it really "too politically correct" to expect someone to not be a racist? Or do conservatives sense the tide turning away from knee-jerk Islamaphobia and cry "free speech" whenever one of their own is held accountable for their bigoted actions?
No, Fox News' interest in Williams has precious little to do with freedom of speech. Their interest stems from their goal of keeping Islamaphobia the norm. They would not have reacted so compassionately if Williams had been fired for, say, denouncing Christine O'Donnel's credibility or for saying something inflammatory about the Tea Party Movement. Why would they? They have no vested interest in promoting that way of thinking, and in the above cases they would have shunned him outright. But when Williams comes under fire for his repeated racist, bigoted, and highly-editorialized "analysis," well, the corporate news dogs have got his back: Fox News chief Roger Ailes says Williams' right to say bigoted things will be "protected by Fox News on a daily basis."
Let me make one thing clear: Juan Williams is not the victim of a First Amendment violation. He said what he said, and he is still a free citizen who does not have to worry about his government locking him up, or worse. He exercised his right to say something bigoted, and NPR responded by exercising their right to fire his ass. And in terms of how this ugly scenario turned out, I wouldn't worry much about Juan Williams. Just because NPR isn't on the market for an Islamaphobe doesn't mean other news agencies aren't. I think he'll be just fine.
Of course, none of this has stopped the talking heads at Fox News from railing on about how Williams' supposed "First Amendment rights" were violated. And of course, Fox News was happy to take in the poor, oppressed Williams and offer him a $2million contract, thus giving us a clear answer to the question, "What does it take to get a job at Fox News?" (In Williams' case, all you have to do is make some bigoted comments on one of their programs and get subsequently fired from what they see as a "liberal think tank.")
Even if Williams had appeared as an individual, NPR's code of ethics expressly prohibits journalists from "participat[ing] in shows, electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than rather than fact-based analysis." Whether or not this standard stifles free speech is not the issue; Williams knew this code, he knew he was acting in violation of his employer's policy, and he chose to appear on The O'Reilly Factor anyway.
One could speculate that Williams appeared on the Factor to make inflammatory comments specifically so that his contract with NPR would be terminated. He could have well known that the supposedly "pro-free speech" (read: pro-Islamaphobia) Fox News would play Good Samaritan and offer him, let's face it, a much more lucrative contract.
What's the other issue here? Are we "too politically correct" about Muslims, Islam, and people from the Middle East? Is it really "too politically correct" to expect someone to not be a racist? Or do conservatives sense the tide turning away from knee-jerk Islamaphobia and cry "free speech" whenever one of their own is held accountable for their bigoted actions?
Let me make one thing clear: Juan Williams is not the victim of a First Amendment violation. He said what he said, and he is still a free citizen who does not have to worry about his government locking him up, or worse. He exercised his right to say something bigoted, and NPR responded by exercising their right to fire his ass. And in terms of how this ugly scenario turned out, I wouldn't worry much about Juan Williams. Just because NPR isn't on the market for an Islamaphobe doesn't mean other news agencies aren't. I think he'll be just fine.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Glenn Beck, survival kits, and vertical integration
Remember on last week's 30 Rock how Jack was defending a controversial method of vertical integration? Example: a company that manufactures both snack chips and Pepto might be inclined to make their snack chips cause diarrhea. It's genius, really... and not at all fictional:
Glenn Beck Hawking Survivalist Disaster Kits
Here's how it works: first, Beck plants the seeds of sensationalist fear and paranoia into the minds of his many viewers/listeners. Then he promotes (and makes money off of) a product that only the fearful and the paranoid will purchase. Genius!
Beck used to suggest his viewers buy gold, and lots of it, in preparation for the coming economic apocalypse where the government will apparently confiscate our valuables. But not just any gold: Beck, along with Mike Huckabee, played spokesperson in commercials for a company called Goldline International, a company that has recently come under investigation for allegedly ripping off consumers.
Now that we're apparently looking at the apocalypse apocalypse, where only the owners of freeze-dried foodstuffs will survive, Beck is all about this "food insurance" thing. And in true paternalistic form, he grasps his target market by co-opting some tired old patriarch-as-provider jargon:
TPM reports that the "survival kits" range from $199.99 for a single "essentials" kit to a whopping $9,599.99 for one that can feed a five person family for up to 12 months. Is it any wonder Beck made $32million last year?
Your fear and paranoia are commodities to Beck, and he's cashing in like mad. It's genius. Evil genius, but genius nonetheless.
Glenn Beck Hawking Survivalist Disaster Kits
Here's how it works: first, Beck plants the seeds of sensationalist fear and paranoia into the minds of his many viewers/listeners. Then he promotes (and makes money off of) a product that only the fearful and the paranoid will purchase. Genius!
Beck used to suggest his viewers buy gold, and lots of it, in preparation for the coming economic apocalypse where the government will apparently confiscate our valuables. But not just any gold: Beck, along with Mike Huckabee, played spokesperson in commercials for a company called Goldline International, a company that has recently come under investigation for allegedly ripping off consumers.
Now that we're apparently looking at the apocalypse apocalypse, where only the owners of freeze-dried foodstuffs will survive, Beck is all about this "food insurance" thing. And in true paternalistic form, he grasps his target market by co-opting some tired old patriarch-as-provider jargon:
"I finished my food storage, and I couldn't believe how relieved I was. I remember sitting down on the stairs of the basement and looking at it, and thinking 'I could lose my job, and my family will eat.' Sometimes guys don't realize how much pressure is on them."{vomit sounds}
TPM reports that the "survival kits" range from $199.99 for a single "essentials" kit to a whopping $9,599.99 for one that can feed a five person family for up to 12 months. Is it any wonder Beck made $32million last year?
Your fear and paranoia are commodities to Beck, and he's cashing in like mad. It's genius. Evil genius, but genius nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)