Nancy Keenan For The Win

You all, women's rights matter so much to me, especially reproductive rights, and damn does it feel AMAZING to see the address that Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL, just gave.

The party reaffirmed its commitment to women with that.  It may be just politicking to invite her to speak, but  it matters.  

I can't believe we are still fighting about women's bodily autonomy.  I'm 27.  I did a paper in highschool on RU-486 and the history of birth control and abortion in the US and their legality (Yeah, in 10th grade, I didn't really know what a feminist was, but I clearly already was one, since we got to pick our own topics for our little historical analysis of a specific political issue).  At that time, even in my deeply evangelical, fairly fundie Christian community and school (public school, but still more overtly religious than many of the private religious schools my friends attended) the legality of abortion was accepted and people tended to be pro-choice even if they were morally opposed to it.

And now, it's a real issue in the Presidential election.  

So thank God for people speaking out in favor of reproductive justice.

Thank you, Mom, for being pro-choice.

Mothers Day was last week, and even though I'm states away from my mom, I was thinking about her and missing her, and I was also thinking some about her views and the way she raised me, thanks to some posts I saw online that said things like "Thank your mother for being pro-life" and "You're here because your mom was pro-life".  Because... my mom isn't, and wasn't, pro-life.  She's pro-choice.  I'm glad she's pro-choice for a number of reasons.  For one, it means I know I was wanted.  It's reassuring.  If your mom is pro-choice then you know that she actually had the option to abort you, and she chose not to, whereas if your mom is anti-choice, then you never really get to know if you were wanted, a horrible devastating mistake, or something somewhere in the middle.  Even though we didn't talk about abortion at all until I went off to college (and then it was for the World's Shortest Sex-ed conversation of "If you get pregnant, you will get an abortion so fast your head will spin" which was mildly ironic since I was as pure as fresh-fallen snow at that point, and self-righteous enough to annoy the hell of out myself in retrospect), my mom's politics did affect parts of her upbringing.  I learned that children are awesome and that my mom was SUPER happy that she had my brother and I, but I also learned that it was important and good that she got to control when she had kids and how many kids she had.  My parents were married for 11 years or so before they had my brother, and when they got married my mom had no desire of ever having kids.  Because she always sent the message that the way to have kids is to plan them, I don't have any stress or internal pressure about the fact that I'm not ready for kids yet.  I'm controlling my reproduction, and when JD and I someday have kids, it will be because we're ready, not because we got surprised.

I'm also glad that my mom is pro-choice because she was a good example of the fact that a woman's value is in more than her baby-making abilities.  My mom not only taught me that children were a choice rather than a default stage of life, she taught me that who you are matters, and that women can work like men do.  My mom worked until my senior year of highschool, and when she quit working it was retirement.  When she first started teaching, she wasn't allowed to wear slacks to work and a pregnancy could mean being fired.  By the time she ended, maternity leave and protections against discrimination towards pregnant women were already in place across many industries.

I don't want to parent exactly like my mom did.  She did a great job, but I'm not her, and some of her style wouldn't work with me.  Plus, we all swear that there are some things we won't do like our parents and certain things that are almost necessary to change because of the ways society changes (when I have kids, they'll probably get communication chips implanted in their heads at age ten or something equally sci-fi silly; I didn't get a cell phone until I went off to college).  But I am thankful for my mom, and I am thankful for her example.

So thank you, Mom, for being pro-choice.

What it's actually like to experience a trans-vaginal ultrasound

There are all these ridiculous new movements, and in some cases actual laws, to force women to get a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion, even when it's not medically required.  Some people have responded to it by saying that if women don't want to see the images, they can close their eyes, and others have said that if women don't want an ultrasound wand in their vagina, they shouldn't have put anything else (PENIS!) in their vagina.  These responses seem to be missing the point that, in situations where it isn't medically required, it basically exists to function as an additional uncomfortable, unpleasant punishment.  Equating the wand to a penis is especially odd, since dicks and hard plastic ultrasound wants don't actually have a lot in common.

But the main idea seems to be that women who have sex shouldn't mind having something else shoved up their vag.  I'm actually surprised I haven't seen it compared to a dildo yet, since they have similar general shapes, but that comparison would fail too, especially since the vast majority of women who use masturbation aids use external vibrators, rather than internal vibrators or dildos (their are actually statistics on this out there if someone wants to go hunt them up, but I'm not exactly in the mood to wade through the kind of search results that query would get).

The main thing is, though, that a transvaginal ultrasound is fundamentally different from sex.  During sex, if a "normally" functioning woman is interested, her vagina actually lengthens, lubes up some, and widens.  Penises are rigid, but also bendy.  Time and angles can be navigated to provide pleasure, or diminish discomfort.  In a transvaginal ultrasound, you're probably not aroused, so the vag is going to stay its typical, unwelcoming size.  The wand is going to be hard plastic with no bend and no give.  And rather than working for comfortable, pleasing angles, the thing gets purposefully moved around and held in positions that, well, can hurt an awful lot and be just plain uncomfortable when they don't hurt.

This isn't speculation.  I had to have a transvaginal ultrasound a couple of years back as part of a diagnostic procedure, because it really can see what's all up in your abdominal cavity business.  And it hurt and was unpleasant, and was basically way awful.  It helped that the technician was super kind and tried to be gentle, but still.  To get some of the pictures she was needed, it involved a lot of super unpleasant maneuvering and felt even more vulnerable than a regular gyno visit.  It wasn't the worse pain I've ever felt, and I wouldn't rank it up as one of the worst parts of my life, but if someone told me that I had to have one when it wasn't even medically necessary, to try and make me reconsider my previously made health decisions, when it wouldn't truly add any new information to my decision-- God, I'd be furious.  It is not a pleasant procedure, and it is not some little inconsequential thing.  It is painful and unpleasant and when it isn't medically necessary it's useless.  I can't see how requiring women to have a transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion is anything other than a punishment, meant to discomfort, shame, humiliate, and possibly hurt women.  She already knows what's in there. That's why she's getting the abortion.  What purpose does showing her a grainy image, indistinguishable from a stock image actually serve?

Birth Control Costs More Than a Few Cups of Coffee

If you don't have insurance, birth control costs a lot more than a couple cups of coffee. The generic of the pill I'm prescribed costs $60 a month. Sure, some generics may cost as little as $8 a month, but you can only buy what you have a prescription for, and different birthcontrols have different effects on different people. If your body doesn't react well to some of the cheaper ones, then they aren't an option.  Some people suggest that we all just switch to condoms, but birth control is more effective, and you easier for a woman to control.  Plus, non-latex condoms are more expensive and less effective than the regular kind, but if you have a sensitivity to latex, like I do, they're the type you'd have to use if you want to have sex more than once a week-- and I think it's safe to assume that a lot of young folk want to have sex more than once a week, and also not get pregnant.  


What's also interesting is that it seems like a lot of people who are opposed to birth control or to having birth control covered by insurance are conflating a need for birth control with "screw[ing] everything in sight".  I'm all for people sleeping around if that's what works for them and keeps them happy in life... but statements like that are ignoring the fact that a lot of people who use birth control are in monogamous relationships, and others may be single and having sex quite rarely.  I'm married.  I'm a newlywed.  My husband and I aren't ready for children yet.  Birth control is what keeps us, a monogamous married couple, from having an unwanted pregnancy that we aren't financially or emotionally ready to deal with.


After a lot of research, I decided hormonal birth control is a better fit for me than an IUD or condoms (though I am considering looking into the arm implant, after I get insurance).  I've decided it is a WAY better fit than trying to track my fertility, since so many women do not have consistent cycles based on changes in diet, stress, and exposure to other women.  As I don't have insurance, so I pay $720 a year on the generic of the birth control my doctor prescribed, and i consider myself lucky that I'm not paying $1080 a year for it, the way a friend of mine who was prescribed birth control for non-contraceptive reasons does.

MRA

Here's the thing. I really like the idea of men's rights. It dovetails neatly with feminism, and with helping people to escape the patriarchy. It's just that, when I've gone looking for men's rights blogs I end up finding... a lot of jerks.

But... I love the idea of men's rights. A revaluation of custody and child support to better evaluate what is truly best for the child? Yes! A way for men to cut off parental obligations and rights to unwanted children before they are born? Yes! Awareness of sexual harassment of men? Yes! More mental health services for men? Yes! A more open dialog in America on circumcision? Yes! Hell, even more talk about how we treat our veterans, especially the disabled ones!

To me, all these things fit very nicely with what feminism is trying to do-- break down the restrictive walls of the patriarchy. Yes, feminism works primarily for women, but even in today's society, women are more disadvantaged than men. It seems like a lot of ideas of men's rights are just a recognition that the patriarchy hurts men too.

Except.

Except.

Except.

When I go looking for dialogue or blogs, I wind up finding a majority of men who are hostile or mistrusting to women, who think they are entitled to sex, who think young women in tight clothes exist to be objects of the male gaze, and who think women are scheming creatures out to get the most money from men. These sites seem to treat women as subhuman. It's scary. They call feminism hate speech, irrational, and evil. They want control over the choice of whether or not to have abortion, want rape redefined, and want women to understand that it's looks, not what's inside, that matters.

And when I read that stuff, I feel literally ill. I forget sometimes how lucky I am to be in a very educated, fairly liberal bubble--law students in Boston-- where men and women are allowed to express themselves pretty much however they want.

So what I want to ask is-- is there a reasonable side to this men's rights movement? Are there people out there advocating for change without denigrating women along the way? And how can this movement and feminism work together for the benefit of us all?

FOR REFERENCE:

some MRA sites I've found that have left me rather horrified, either through the content, or through the manner in which the content is present. There are more out there, but honestly, a little bit of following the sites these sites link to will give you a pretty good idea, without me having to type them all out.

Angry Harry

The Spearhead

The Anti Feminist

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.

SERIOUSLY????

Oh. Oh my. Oh man.

There are ways to make me angry-- and then there are ways to make me disgusted-- but this? I does both.

My friend Jenny led me to this link: When Getting Beaten By Your Husband is a Pre-Existing Condition. When I saw the title, I thought "well, obviously, it can't be serious, domestic abuse wouldn't count as a pre-existing condition, it's not a disease and its the result of someone else's actions.

But then I read the HuffPo article. And it is exactly what it sounds like. Not every insurance policy has being a victim of domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition-- but at least seven of them allow it. That is, if you are a woman (or a man) who has been abused by a man (or a woman) and you stay in a relationship with that person, it is allowed for you to be charged a higher rate as a result. The HuffPo article points out the obvious logic to it-- women with abusive partners are more likely to be abused again, and thus, need medical treatment; since they statistically cost more, charge them more. But... this is not as easy a situation as this would make it out to be.

Yes, being a victim of abuse is like having an illness-- you don't want it, and you can't escape it, even though you may try to treat it through medicines or self help. But it's also different. This is something the system could fix if we gave more resources to women (and men! but for ease, I'll stick with saying women) who are abused. This is a time when our tax dollars could go to a good cause-- helping women escape their situation, have a shelter until they find work, and have therapy so they don't go back.

This is affecting me especially strongly because it hits close to home. One of my close college friends has dealt with domestic abuse, and is currently in the process of leaving her abuser and forging out on her own-- and there is not a great wealth of social services available to help her with this; she's had to move back with her parents to make this possible, and she has a job that makes some money, which helps. But for many abused women, there are no parents willing to help, and there is no job to help support them-- and even if there had been, there is likely no savings they can access. Men who are physically violent are often controlling in other ways, which often includes control of finances-- either not letting a woman work at all, or having her paycheck direct-deposited into an account he controls.

Also, getting a woman who has been abused to admit to that abuse is hard-- so if its on the record, making that record hurt her is the last thing we need, if we want to help people-- and I know insurance companies are corporations, not charities, but I believe that even corporations should have some ethical guidelines.

I guess what I'm basically saying is-- abuse should not be treated as a pre-existing condition. Women who deal with abuse have to deal with mistreatment from their partner and the legal system. And now I find out the insurance system would like to make it even harder for these women to tell their stories-- which ultimately makes it harder to leave. Because that's the other shitty part of domestic abuse-- psychologically, most of these women can't leave their abuser, at least not on the first-- what, ten or more?-- tries. You may not understand it, but there is some serious mental stuff that goes on-- more than i can get into here-- and the system itself is failing women whenever it refuses to acknowledge that.

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.

Kyl and Beck say a lot of stupid stuff, huh?

Ugh.

So, we all know Planned Parenthood is under attack from so many angles, and that so many people are lying about them, some senators (Hi Jon Kyl!  How is something presented as fact on the senate floor NOT meant to be taken as fact?) and some talk show hosts making ridiculous hyperbole (Hi Glen Beck! Hookers, huh?  Really?  I mean, REALLY?)  (and yes, I am not linking to these things because, hi, I'm sick, and also, hi, Google is your friend, really.

I don't even know how to respond.

We all know, or should know, at this point, that any abortions that PP does are not federally funded already due to the Hyde Amendment.  We also know, or should know by now, that abortion is only ~3% of what PP does.

Look, guys.  I'm a married 26 year old lady.  I think it is probably not a secret that I am having sex.  And since I am unemployed, my husband and I can't really afford to have a kid right now.  So you know what we do to prevent that?  BIRTH CONTROL.  and you know where I am going to most likely be going to get my birth control when my prescription runs out, since I have no insurance?  PLANNED PARENTHOOD.  And you know where I will most likely get my pap and yearly check up, that will ensure that I will be able to provide my husband with joyous offspring, thereby demonstrating his virility to the world in a Republican-approved manner?  PLANNED PARENTHOOD.  And you know what else I could go to PP for if I did manage to get knocked up earlier than planned despite the birth control?  PRENATAL CARE.  That's right, guys.  PP will do all the SUPER EXPENSIVE prenatal checkups a woman should have at an affordable price!  And if I wanted to get pregnant and had trouble conceiving, you know what else they could do?  Tell me all kinds of medical stuff about how to up my chances of conception!  Because they actually do employs doctors and nurse practitioners who know about this stuff!  If we wanted a kid and got pregnant now, PP would actually be able to help us have a healthy baby and reduce the risk of miscarriage!  

WHY DO YOU HATE HEALTHY BABIES, PEOPLE WHO HATE PLANNED PARENTHOOD?  WHY DO YOU HATE REDUCING STDS AND CHECKING WOMEN FOR CANCER?  I CAN YELL JUST AS WELL AS YOU CAN!

Walgreens and CVS can't prescribe me my birth control (that enables us to have condomless sex the way most men like it, GOP!).  They can't give me a pap smear and help make sure I don't get cancer (Are they going to look up my vag in the stationary aisle?  The candy aisle?  No.  They DON'T DO THAT KIND OF STUFF).  They can sell me vitamins, but can they sample my blood and help me deal with gestational diabetes if I get it?  NO, THEY CAN'T.  The kids in pharmacy school who usually fill my prescriptions may well not even know of doctor's offices to refer me to if I need a specialist!

So, yeah, guys.  Planned Parenthood does provide abortions, and in my opinion, that's a super important thing that shouldn't be prevented.  But through their birth control services, they do a whole hell of a lot more to prevent abortion than the Right does, and through their many many services, they do a whole hell of a lot that benefits married men and women, whether the lady in the equation is a housewife or holds down a demanding career.

Oh, and for the dudes who want to sleep around while they're young and single?  WHERE DO YOU THINK THEY GET TESTED FOR STDS AFTER COLLEGE, HUH?

EDIT: Oh My God, Stephen Colbert.  I think I love you.  How did I not know about this clip until right now, 2:01 PM?

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.)

How should a crime that kills a wanted fetus be classified?

I recently (possibly today?  Possibly a few days ago?  Everything runs together when you realize you have to finish planning a wedding and fill out a Bar application in less than two months!) read an article on Jezebel-- and then the initial news article-- on laws affecting crimes against pregnant women, specifically ones that cause them to miscarry.

I tried to refind the articles, but I can't.  Which annoys me, because context is always helpful.  But at any rate, the issue is how do you deal with an attack that causes a miscarriage?  Is it simply ignored, with the crime against the woman considered, whether it's murder or just assault?  Is it an additional homicide in cases where the parent(s) were intending to bring it to term?  Is it an unlawful abortion?  Is it a form of theft?

The way it's dealt with matters, because in both the law and society, words have meaning-- and application of laws can create precedent.  We dealt with this situation some back in 1L Criminal law.  I don't remember how most of the people in the class felt, but I do remember that the cases dealt with scenarios where the woman wanted a child, and some of them were pretty horrifying, in part because of our societal views that pregnant women are to be protected, and in part just because of the brutality of the attack (I still remember reading about one man who said he was going to "stomp the baby" out of a woman).

I do think it should be taken seriously-- and I don't think that that in any way is in conflict with my being pro-choice.  It's pro-choice. Which means I respect the choices that women make for their bodies and reproductive futures, and I don't think abortions or miscarriages should be forced any more than I think they should be prohibited.  But the killing of a wanted fetus that the mother is planning to bring to term still should not count as a homicide-- because a fetus is not a person.  When it dies, a person is not dying-- a potential person is, even though a couple who wants a child may have already named it, and may already be emotionally thinking of it as a person.  But it isn't a person.

Still, because of their hopes and dream and effort put into it, and lifestyle changes, and potential dangers of just being pregnant, people invest a lot into a wanted pregnancy.  And there should be some kind of extra charge.  I guess the best that I can come up with would be a new charge, based on the idea of theft, but even that doesn't quite convey the right tone.  It's a trespass against someone's body in a way that a normal physical assault isn't, and it steals their past efforts and their hope of having that fetus be a child.  So I don't think it should be ignored, and I don't think it should be treated as murder, but I do think there should be some additional charge, and I also think that that is completely in low with a pro-choice viewpoint.

The irrelevance of Gawker's attempt to shame Christine O'Donnell

I get that hypocrisy in our elected officials is an important thing to take note of, and I'm all for calling people out on it, but... Gawker's little "expose" on Christine O'Donnell did not do that.  True, she's totally a joke of a politician, and we know that she had sex back in college, so her current anti-pre-marital sex attitude seems a little do as a say not as I did-- the exact kind of attitude that gets parents to lose their children's respect-- but Gawker's piece is just-- not serving any real and legitimate purpose.

The piece says its about a one-night-stand, but all the details it actually gives are that he managed to get her clothing off, they didn't have sex, and she was aggressive about pursuing some kisses earlier in the evening.  Oh, and that she was utterly WASTED.  She made it clear she wasn't going to have sex.  That checks with her political positions, so that doesn't fall into the realm of important hypocrisy.  She wanted to do some making our and kissing.  Ok, but has she said that kissing isn't ok?  If she has-- which, ok, wouldn't shock me-- it isn't something I've heard about.  So again, not seeing hypocrisy.  Her clothes came off-- ok, I can see why that's problematic with the family values set-- but there is absolutely no reason to detail the state of her pubic hair.  That's utterly irrelevant, and exists only as a salacious detail-- plus, who really cares what her pubic hair is like?  Are they really trying to shame someone for not waxing?  I've been in women's locker rooms, and I can tell you that, while widespread, being hairless isn't as universal as some people make it out to be.  Also, theres' a curious lack of detail regarding how the underwear got off of the utterly wasted woman-- did she take it off?  Did he?   I'd honestly be curious to see what her recollection of the night was, especially since the anonymous author does represent her as being drunker than he, and since once they were in bed, his early and repeated descriptions of her as aggressive ended.

So, what's the take away?  She was aggressive about making out, but adamant about not having sex and seemed sexually inexperienced.  I don't see how this is an important expose on hypocrisy.  All I see is an attempt to embarrass her.  Quite frankly, her politics do a good enough job of that on their own-- and this just makes me think poorly of Gawker, for trying to use previous legal drunken sexual actions to shame her.

The Handmaid's Tale: The Fragility of Equality

This is a guest post by JD, my fiance.  He graduated law school in May, and like me, is currently looking for work.  He has previously written a published legal article, and is a part author of a chapter of one of the authoritative texts on federal civil procedure. .  He is one of the most insightful and wonderful people I know.

I picked up a new novel last night with the idea of reading for an hour or so before bed. At around 4am, I finally put down The Handmaids Tale by Margaret Atwood after absorbing its startling epilogue. Atwood spins her dystopian fiction as a disjointed narrative that approaches stream of consciousness, a style that seems to mirror the mind of the novel’s protagonist. Attempting to summarize the plot would not do the book justice, but suffice to say I couldn’t put it down and it gripped me with an odd emotion I don’t normally get when reading: fear.

Fear isn’t actually a response I encounter often when reading dystopian literature. Classics such as 1984 I took in as warnings, with the knowledge that their goal was to teach us to be on our guard, to teach us that being aware of the possibility of such a future was a step in combating it. But 1984 didn’t leave me with a feeling of immediacy, a feeling that such a future could easily come to pass. Though it dealt with sex somewhat, and was partly about the freedom to love, 1984 did not have as its focus a theocratic dystopia based around the subjugation of women. Such a world is the focus of The Handmaids Tale.

Why does that particular structure frighten me more than the dystopia imagined by other authors? Why should I be any more disturbed by that than by Orwell’s emotionally repressed world? The answer is that it hits too close to home. At one point in the novel, the protagonist asks her “Commander”—one of the male leaders of the new theocracy—the all important question: why? His answer is multi-faceted, but mainly is concerned with giving men something to live for again. The rise of feminism and the status of women as equals removed men from their role as protectors, usurped their former place in the world. Rather than combat that emptiness with a new goal, they sought to return to the former status quo. There is no adaptation here, but rather true conservatism on the part of the men; a refusal to adapt to changes in the world and in society. Part of the “Commander’s” defense is that they were merely returning to the way it always had been, that feminism was the anomaly and merely a blink in the course of history.

Those words fill me with fear because in a way they are true. The equality of women is a recent accomplishment, and in a non-legal sense there are still many battles to be fought. The 19^th amendment, granting women’s suffrage in the U.S., was not ratified until 1920—less than 100 years ago. What women have fought so hard for is truly a recent attainment, and parallels the civil rights movement in that regard. The Handmaid’s Tale is frightening because it contemplates a step back and an unraveling of all that has been achieved and that has helped make women more than brood mares and domestic slaves.

               

Even more frightening is that there are those out there who still argue that women belong in a situation like that portrayed in The Handmaids Tale: they are lesser, they exist only for breeding, they shouldn’t be educated. The source of those views is irrelevant, they could be biblically justified, as those in The Handmaid’s Tale were, or they could be the result of individual hatred and stem from individuals who went through bad divorces or have grown to hate all women because of some unfortunate personal experience. Regardless of their origin, people who would embrace the world of The Handmaid’s Tale exist.  They exist, and they must be fought. The battle is not over, and The Handmaid’s Tale shows us a world that might be if those who still believe that women should not have the same rights as men succeed.  In that way it is more than a parable and is to some extent, a call to arms. We cannot take for granted the equality of the sexes; we must remember the struggle it took to get here, and we must continue that struggle against everyone who would try to take that equality away. Regardless of who uttered these words originally, they remain true: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

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.

Today, I compared abortion to a couch

Hi.

If you're on this entry, you're probably here via The Antifeminist.  Please don't just leave.  Take the time to read some of my entries, and evaluate them.  I'm not some insane person who hates men.  The post you were directed to has, obviously, a rather flippant title, but it's actually a post about talking about major life decisions with your partner.  It's here, if you still want to read it, and it hasn't been altered in any way, despite the claims of The Antifeminist.  But please, while you're here, read some other posts.  Feel free to leave comments, though please adhere to my comment policy.  Feel free to email me, too, at lovelettersinhell@gmail.com and I'll get back to you.