Self Esteem

Self-esteem is a tricky thing. I generally think I have pretty good self-esteem-- I'm reasonably intelligent, reasonably attractive, generally kind, very well read, and curious about the world. I like to think I'm turning into a competent adult-- I keep my apartment relatively clean, make myself healthy meals at least half the time, and actually get up for work even though I set my own hours.

But money... oh, money pulls me down. Not that I don't have a lot-- I'm in law school, no one in law school is anything but poor-- but that what little money I do have, I'm terrible at managing. Looking at my finances today, I discovered that I am once again broke as broke can be. And honestly, there is no reason for me to be this broke. Its purely a case of mismanaging my funds, of not keeping track of my spending, or being irresponsible.

And that? makes me feel like a child. A terrible, worthless, irredeemable child. Consciously, I know that feeling this way is silly, that I will (eventually, at least!) resolve my financial issues, and that once my loan checks come in in-- what? A little over a month? I will be financially clear until at least the end of next school year. But for now? Even if this problem is fixable with time and, in the grand scheme of things, not very significant-- it is sending me into myself in questioning and doubt and sadness. I'm angry at myself, annoyed at myself, and almost worst of all not even that surprised at myself.

This kind of proof of irresponsibility is damaging, at least short term, to my self esteem. Because despite all the traits I listed up above, and while my self esteem is surely influenced by my looks and accomplishments and intelligence, whatever they all may be-- its most largely based on whether or not I feel I am a competent person. Whether I am able to handle the everyday tasks that everyone has to face. And when I mess up on things that are so everyday, so basic, so necessary-- well, that's a much larger blow to myself esteem than a series of unflattering photos or a bad score on a test could ever be.

What’s a Modern Girl Want with Marriage, Anyway?

Today's entry is a bit unusual-- I didn't write it. Instead, this is courtesy of my friend Jenny, one of my favorite people in the world. Jenny is 25, and spends her days working on her PhD while trying to solve the mysteries of prostate cancer. She has a golden retriever named after Bruce Wayne, she's one of the most well-read people I know, she has an amazing assortment of heels, she's a kick-ass rock-climber, she makes delicious cupcakes, and she's a huge nerd.

She also just bought her wedding dress.

Like everything else in life, it turns out lots of people have opinions they feel the need to share with you, if you’re a 25 year old woman getting married. Are you knocked up, they say. Why not just live together, they say. Isn’t it selfish of you to get married when not everyone can?

It takes all the (limited) patience I have not to hit them with my favorite quote from The Departed: Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe go fuck yourself. But to be a little more civil, I’ve broken it down with my friend Amanda, who’s kindly let me work out my mental twists and turns in this guest post.

1) Why get married? Because I want to. In an ideal world, this would be the only reason that mattered. I’ve dated my fiancé for a little over a year, and we’re both ready to get married. For various personal reasons, we don’t want to live together before we’re married, so we’re looking forward to not only starting our lives together but also sharing a home with our dog for the first time. I think it’s safe to say that not being married has complicated our lives far more than being married will. I am certain that I will be staying with my fiancé for the rest of our lives. And no, I do not want to wait five years, or ten years, or thirty-five years, or however long it will take until some anonymous commenter on the lives of others feels we’re
“ready.” We’re ready now. We’ve talked about it thoroughly, and we’re clear on what marriage will and will not be changing about our relationship. We’ll live in the same place. I’ll be changing my name (and no, I will not be taking opinions on that topic). Aside from that: not much. A friend recently told me that her mother’s philosophy is that if you’re not married before the wedding, you won’t be married after it. The actual ceremony and certificate won’t be changing things for us. I’m not insecure or trying to prove anything. I just want our relationship to be as official as it can be, for my own emotional reasons. In other words: Why would we NOT get married? There’s nothing holding us back. I’m in graduate school, but I don’t need to be single in order to finish. I’m 25, he’s 24. We’ve both dated plenty of people and had enough experience to know when the right person came along. Additionally, I don’t find much credibility in the theory that “it’s much more meaningful to not get married, because then every day you spend together is a choice.” Every day you spend with someone, in or out of marriage, is a choice. Disentangling yourself from any long term relationship, married or not, is going to be difficult. I, personally, find it much more meaningful to get married. Why? I’ve never married anyone before. It’s the most special thing I can think of to demonstrate how important my fiancé is to me.

2) Why get married? Because it will simplify things for my fiancé and I. I mentioned this before, but not sharing a house while we share a dog is a giant pain in the butt. More than that, having the rights that come easily with marriage but are so hard to get otherwise will be a big bonus. I don’t have to worry about not being able to see him in the hospital. He won’t have to fight my dad for our dog if I die suddenly. (My dad really loves our dog.) When we buy a house together, our loan process will be more streamlined than if we were just living together. In the event of one of our sudden illnesses, end of life decisions and similar medical consultations will take place by default with the other person. Although you can certainly file paperwork empowering your partner to make these decisions, hospitals may choose to recognize these or not. In the event of one of our deaths, our estate will revert to the other one, not to our parents. If one of us chooses to stay at home with the children, and the supporting spouse dies, the widow/er has the option to bring a wrongful death suit and get money to represent the lost earnings.

3) Why get married? Because it will make things easier for our future family. This is a short point, but a good one—our children will be default have both our names on their birth certificates. We’ll both be empowered to pick them up from school, sign off on things, etc., and while that’s not something that’s limited to married parents, it will make dealing with school administrators easier. Again, in the event of one of our deaths, custody of the children will revert to the surviving spouse, not our families.

4) Why get married? Because I believe that everyone should have the option. Not getting married as a stance on gay rights only really works if you’re a high-profile celebrity. Otherwise, you’re protesting others’ lack of civil rights, but not exercising your own. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. It’s like saying all people should have the right to vote, but then not voting yourself. It’s my firm opinion, having been raised in the Bible Belt, that marriage will never be changed from the outside. It will take the dedicated work of married, straight supporters of gay rights to start to change the mainstream attitude about marriage. I also know that the kind of people who believe in the defense of marriage see not getting married as a cop out. By getting married, I am strengthening my own voice in this debate, making it carry more weight where it counts.

Plus, I love my fiancé and I can’t wait to get married to him.

Privacy

In my first class of Sexuality and the Law, we (surprisingly, maybe) didn't talk a whole lot about sexuality itself, or the law as it applies to sex-- instead, we discussed one of the foundations behind a lot of law that intersects with sex-- privacy!

Privacy is actually a pretty interesting idea to discuss, in a legal sense-- in today's world, there's the idea that we have a right to privacy, a right "to be left alone", as Justice Brandeis put it. The question is, where is this right coming from? In Con law, we discussed privacy in a few contexts, but the one my biased mind remembered was Roe v. Wade, and the whole penumbra of privacy concept-- though the penumbra was also discussed in the earlier Griswold v. Connecticut case (about birth control for married folks!). On the privacy penumbra viewpoint is... messy. The idea that we MUST have a right to privacy, because without it we can't actually enjoy the enumerated constitutional rights-- especially the ones granted in the first amendment.

My first class made the whole privacy notion a lot more clear. We discussed cases dealing with sending kids to private school and wiretapping, and an old law review article by Brandeis, as well as the evolution of privacy from an interpretation of tort law to a constitutional right.

I could keep chatting and regurgitating and talking about the idea of privacy as a legal right-- the right to be let alone-- on the same level as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, but instead I'd rather think about the implications of privacy-- why we value it, and how we used to value it, and how it's changed. Why isn't there a right to privacy in the constitution? Did people just... not care? Did they think it was a given? Or did the think it shouldn't be a right? What seems essentially human to think about it?

Views on privacy seems especially complicated in the digital age, because we have sites like Facebook and Myspace where people post all sorts of seemingly-private information-- but I don't think that means that they don't value privacy. Rather, it seems that they do value privacy, but use these sites to control their public image-- while still have a ridiculous expectation that these sites will remain private to parents, employers, and others in positions of authority. At the same time, people de-tag pictures of themselves, only put up photos they feel comfortable with, and don't share a lot of their private feelings and actions. The difference here is more a level of privacy between old and young, I think, rather than an idea that privacy itself is no longer relevant.

Take gossip and scandals, for example. They aren't interesting just because they're about friends or public figures-- they're interesting because they dip into privacy, and reveal hidden contours of a person, or events that are normally not shared. Or diaries-- the more public a diary is, the less it is likely to discuss emotions in ways where the settings and participants are identifiable-- and when they do, feelings get hurt and relationships get strained. If there was no expectation of privacy, the child or parent whose faults are exposed in a memoir would have no reason to be hurt, yet that hurt happens all the time.

So, privacy seems linked to both an expectation of trust in others, a sense of safety and security, and a concern for how others will judge us. I think privacy is an inherent value-- we feel the need to keep things to ourselves, even if our reason tells us that we don't need to, and that thinking that way is silly. I take myself as an example-- I try to keep away from really identifiable interactions with others on this blog, because A. I feel that talking about it would violate their privacy, their ability to be in control of their public image, and their trust in me, and B. I feel a strange sense of... ickyness, in sharing such details of my own life with the world.

Not everyone is this way-- Heather Armstrong crosses typical boundaries of privacy in a revealing and extremely popular blog that talks about her life as a mother, blogger, woman, and wife. She's wildly popular-- in large part because of the depth of sharing she does. People can relate, and they like the in depth scenes of life they get, the descriptions of "private" family moments, the stories about emotions, childbirth, and her battles with mental illness-- but she's a rare woman with skin of steel, who gets hate mail in good proportion with her popularity.

Privacy feels like a right, whether it is legally or not. People cry "Big Brother" when online movements get monitored, or when grocery stores send coupon suggestions based on purchase history. We don't live in a communal, open society-- we have inner selves, and live in small family units, and the details we share with others seem to get larger and deeper as emotional connections get closer and closer. And at the core of it all, we want to keep something to ourselves-- some secrets, something private that belongs to us, and us only-- it seems like privacy is part of what makes us who we are, distinguishable spirits in the mass communications of humanity.

Passion

Goals, passions, life plans...

I have goals.  I have things I care about.  And I definately have a path that I want my life to follow.

What I don't have is an overwhelming career-driven ambition.  I don't have the same kind of passion that so many of my friends do-- from a girl who wants to go into animal rights law, to a girl who is studying how to prevent and cure cancer.

I have things that interest me!  I'm not a boring person, devoid of any career goals-- right now I'm thinking I'll focus on either copyright, which is intellectually very interesting to me, or reproductive rights, which are probably the closest I come to having a career oriented passion.

But, if I can't do either of those options, I'll be fine doing something else.  My personal life, my ideas of a future family life, are more important to me than specific career ideas-- though I do want a good career!

Sometimes, I feel as if this is a moral failing.

I feel like I should be devoted to some career path, I should be more ambitious.  I used to have ambition.  I used to practically define myself by my ambition-- and my achievements.  But then my achievements kept not living up to my ambition, and so I scrapped ambition to some degree-- or at least, the type of ambition I used to have.  I wonder if this is just a natural result of getting older and more complex, or if its a result of not being quite as smart as I thought I was when I was younger.  I wonder if the lack of ambition is linked to my changing mental state.  I wonder.

Ambition is valued so much in America-- the whole American dream seems to be upward mobility, but damn it, even just going to law school is practically doing that for me.  Is my problem then just that I don't value what society does?  And given how utterly messed up society is-- is that maybe a good thing?

I don't know.  I've accepted that this is who I am-- a girl whose ambitions are mainly not in the career mold, and whose career ambitions equate to reasonable pay, reasonable hours, reasonably intellectually interesting, rather than specifically anything.  And I'm fine with that.

But it would be nice to have a little more passion, and direction, when it comes time to look for my post-law-school-job.

Sex Ed

I've been meeting a lot of new people lately (as a result of travelling out of town for three weddings this month) and quite a few of them have asked me what areas of law I'm interested in. When I tell them copyright and reproductive rights, several of them have them said, in a questioning tone, "Reproductive right?". I'm guessing that either having it chase copyright confuses, or that people simply aren't used to hearing the term itself. So them I explain-- and I explain that, while I'm a big fan of Planned Parenthood's mantra of "safe, legal, and rare", my main interest is working on the rare element.

I am definitely a big fan of easy, cheap abortion access. I think anyone who wants one, for any reason, should be able to get one. And I do mean any reason-- including even sex-selection of children.

But even though I'm in full support of abortions, I recognize that getting one sucks. Both kinds sound pretty awful-- induced miscarriage or surgical, either way your insides are getting twisty and the end result sounds like PMS times 100. Plus, in many states, it's hard to get an abortion-- either it's hard to physically get to a facility, it's hard to come up with the money, or it's there are laws regarding the age of the woman seeking one, or other conditions she has to jump through. And I know there are other women out there who hate, hate, hate the "rare" part of PP's motto, but by wanting to make abortion rare, I'm not suggesting we should attatch any judgement to women who get abortions, or that we should make it harder for them to do so-- I actually think we should make it a lot easier to get an abortion than it currently is.

But I still think that, instead of going through the understandably unpleasant experience of getting an abortion, it might be better if more women can prevent unwanted pregnancies from ever occuring in the first place. When I say I want to make abortions more rare, I want to give women more agency, not less. I want every child-- and every pregnancy-- to be a wanted one.

And so I want to work with a reproductive rights group on legislation to get better, comprehensive sex education in school, and better, less expensive contraceptives. I want girls to be educated about the pros-- and the cons-- of different forms of birth control, and I want health care to provide them with regular, affordable visits to a gynecologist-- preferably an awesome, non judging one like mine-- to discuss sex and their options. I don't want sex ed to consist of scare tactics and horrifying pictures of late-stage, untreated stds-- that's not going to convince limbic-system thinkers of anything. I'd rather they get presented with actual facts, statistics, and information-- including about STDs, but also about the way sex can mess with your chemicals to make you feel emotions that have no basis in reality, and also the fact that sex is normal, and can lead to other health benefits due to some of the same chemical reactions.

I do definitely think teens should be discouraged from having sex-- but I don't think they should be lied to, or misled through omission. And no matter what is said, at least some of them are going to have sex anyway. So condoms, birth control, diaphrams, shots-- all should be discussed in class, along with their rates of success. And then, the class should make sure to mention that certain kinds of lube will degrade certain kinds of condoms. And teach kids how to properly use a condom, and that antibiotics and grapefruit juice will cancel out certain types of birth control, and that yes, it does matter what time you take your pill. In addition, I think that they should go through basic cycle charting with girls, so that they can at least understand what's happening with their bodies when, and how the whole fertilization and pregnancy process actually works.

The last step, of course, is making sure kids have access to the birth control-- and again, my hippie self is all in favor of subsidizing it for them, through free condoms at school, and reduced price visits to a gynecologist and birth control.

If anyone is serious about reducing teen pregnancy-- or reducing abortion-- I'd hope they'd be on board for increased sex ed and contraceptive access. But somehow, I think that a lot of people who think I'm wrong in wanting safe and legal abortions to be easy to obtain will also think i'm wrong in wanting to give people the materials to avoid the pregnancy in the first place.

Virtual Reality

Child porn is bad. This is obvious.

Porn involving consenting adult individuals is a 1st amendment right-- for the adults viewing it, the adults selling it, and possibly even the adults making it. And it's something many people are very enthusiastic about loving.

So... what happens when the porn involves consenting adults who either look, or have been digitally altered to look, much younger than the age of consent? A stickier situation-- if only because its an ickier situation.

Right now, I'm researching some issues involving the 1st amendment. One of the cases I ran across is Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, 535 US 234. The case involves a statute that bans depictions of minors engaged in sexual situations-- even if no actual minors are involved in the making.

A gut, visceral reaction might be that this is not ok, and that people who want to wank to images that appear to be of teens or kids shouldn't get to. The Supreme Court disagrees. They talk about the fact that this statute would also inhibit artistic depictions, like Romeo and Juliet, or American Beauty, or Traffic... or Gossip Girl. But limiting the discussion to classy movies/plays takes the easy way out-- and ignores the ick factor of porn involving people who look like minors.

The idea of youth as beauty and as the sexual peak is pervasive in modern society. That's a given, I'd say. People counted down to the 18th birthdays of the Olsen twins and Emma Watson; adults get "crushes" on the characters of Gossip Girl and whatever else is on TV these days. So... it's almost a given that at least some people are seeing in their heads women or men who play the roles of teens on TV shows, if not actual teens. So, if we as a society are ok with deceptions of teenage sexuality in our entertainment... and if watching/making virtual teen sex with adult actors or computer modelling is a first amendment right... then is virtual minor porn... good? bad? indifferent?

Child porn-- or teen porn-- is bad because it involves a lack of consent and, unless its homemade porn by a couple teens, sexual abuse. Even if teens say they consent, they legally can't--hence a lot of the lawsuits surrounding the Girls Gone Wild franchise. In America, at least, there's a general moral approbation against minors and sex. So, while watching virtual-minor porn is a legal right-- is it morally right? I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. But I'm also not sure that it's any worse than porn that shows adults as adults. I don't think that masturbation, or watching porn are bad things. Yes, I know porn can be exploitative, and that it can lead to negative attitudes towards women, a sense of entitlement, and confusion over what to really do in the bedroom. But the people that are really effected that way are going to get similar messages from the rest of society, even without the overt sexuality. And watching porn is done by... I'm sure more than half the population. Hell, I'm sure more than half the female population watches porn-- though as least from anecdotal evidence (which yes, means approximately nothing) they tend to like different kinds.

And people like all kinds of porn! I don't have a problem with people who want to watch S/M porn, or doctor/patient, or porn where the characters seem to have questionable consent, or tentacle porn, or... well, you get the point. Other people's kinks don't bother me-- especially when they stay in the realm of fantasy. So what's the harm with someone who wants to jack off to it? Yeah, the thought is on the gross side. But so are a lot of things-- to a lot of people. And maybe your imagination would be on the sick side to someone else. You never know.

I didn't realize until now that a wedding gift could be offensive

We received today a wedding present from an older couple who were invited to the wedding, but not able to attend.  The present consists of a generous gift card, and a book.

The book is Unplanned, by Abby Johnson.  It's "The dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood leader's eye-opening journey across the life line".  Abby Johnson, as you may recall, made national news when she quit her job as a director of a Texas Planned Parenthood.  Citing sudden religious conviction and a new realization about how abortion worked.

They thought I "might find the book interesting, in light of our conversation" at our engagement party about my goals to work for a pro-choice non-profit-- in my dream world, Planned Parenthood, and that "Often an evil is made to look like a good, as was the case in the author's personal experience".

I would find the book an odd and inappropriate gift if they had not known about my personal politics and feelings, but the fact that they did know makes it not only inappropriate, but offensive.  It's like a very personal attack, in a way-- implying that my life goals and beliefs are evil.  I know, as JD mentioned, that they are probably doing this is some misguided effort to save my soul, but we're moving to the city they live in.  There are more effective and appropriate ways of challenging someone's views then sending them something like this as a wedding present and implying you think their path is one of evil.  It's rude and unkind and not a loving action.

I have no desire to read the book.  I read some things in the news when she resigned, saw how her story seemed a little... off (How can someone be a director of PP and not know how abortion works?  Or have never seen an ultrasound?)

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure for many women.  It is important, and while I would love for the number of abortions to be reduced through greater access and affordability of birth control and greater access to sex ed, the availability of abortion must be protected, for the sake of women's health.  I've never had an abortion, or even a pregnancy scare, so it isn't an issue that has directly affected me in the ways it has so many others, but it is so, so important, and I will fight to keep abortion safe, legal, and available for women who need it.

I just don't even know what to say.

I guess this is my first Oklahoma culture shock (even though I know they are not representative of most Oklahomans, or even any of the other Oklahomans I have met.)

The Wage Gap and Women's Choices

Some thoughts on the wage gap, women's chocies, and Clay Shirky's A Rant About Women, courtesy of my Feminist Jurisprudence class.