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?

Reddit and misogyny

The was originally posted back in 2010, but I missed it when i was restoring posts to the blog.  Since it was one of the more popular posts, I'm letting it go up to the front, now, rather than posting it as its original date.  In that time, I've come to intensely dislike what Jezebel has become and have stopped using Reddit, but I'm still frustrated by people on the internet on a regular basis.

I spend a lot of time on the internet. More time than I should, really. And I visit a pretty wide range of sites-- feminism, sci-fi, cooking, design, fashion, and health are some of the categories I hit up the most. But one of the things I really love are sites where I can see a lot of user participation, where people talk back and forth in comments in a productive way and have conversations, rather than just posting a one-liner and leaving. It's one of the things I've found really awesome about Jezebel, and it's one of the things that's been getting me more and more into Reddit.

Except... the more time I spend in the comments on Reddit, the less I like what I see. There is a lot of reasonable, mature conversation. But there's also a ton of sexism and misogyny. Some of it is blatantly intended, but much more of it is casual-- a joke or an offhand comment that the poster probably thinks shouldn't be offensive because, gee, it doesn't offend him and he doesn't really think all women should go make him a sammich*, or that we're all sluts, that you can't trust some"thing" that bleeds for a week** and doesn't die. And like, we should all just get a sense of humor and get over it.

I'm fairly certain I have a sense of humor, even though I've been accused of not having one before. I'm just also fairly certain that repeating a bunch of misogynistic drivel is not actually funny.

But the main point is-- there is a lot of misogyny in the Reddit comments. And it begins to be tiring, after awhile. At first, I figured, well, whatever, it's just a few users, I can ignore it. And proportionally, it likely is a minority of the user base-- but it's a vocal minority that creates a fairly hostile environment. Part of it is the sexist, sexual insults that get used on women, but a lot of it just comes from the attitudes of users, showing up in their jokes or even in serious comments. Reddit is mostly known for its aggregator use, but there are also a ton of self posts, which tend to lead to lengthier comments sections-- and those often show the dichotomy between guys who think of women as sluts or cockteases, guys who think they are somehow entitled to sex by pretending to be a girl's friend, guys who feel their girl friends have used them by "stringing them along"-- which, after reading a description, often seems to read like any normal friendship-- except that the girl has either been oblivious to the guy lusting after her, or has turned down his advances in the past.

There're a whole lot of Nice Guys who aren't nice out there, basically.

So one of the things I've been wondering is how to deal with this. The other is why this happens.

Why it happens is a little easier. Reddit is a mostly male community. It is a mostly nerd/geek community. And it is a mostly young (late high school-college aged) community. Or at least-- those are the ones who are the most vocal. The age means a lot of them just may not get sexism yet, and my not understand why what they're doing is jerky. A lot of them are at the age where everything seems OMG SO IMPORTANT and where emotional wounds seem like they'll last forever. And a lot of them are the sort of awkward dude who doesn't have good luck with girls-- but who also ends up lusting after girls who are not dorky or nerdy or geeky and who won't really be interested in them. These guys want women to be perfect and get pissed when they aren't. That's just youthful stupidity and lack of experience.

But still, it's a problem. Especially since some of the dudes are in my age range, and should know better. So, how do we fix this? Both to get the attitude online more respectful, and to make them really internally realize that women are human and equal too, and yet still given a suckier place in American society than men? And how do we make them realize when they're being inappropriate?

I tend to be one of those annoying people who calls others out for stupid generalizations. I mainly see generalizations about men ore women-- I don't mind as much when people say "most" or "many"-- but I hate when that most becomes something like "Most women are dumb sluts" and I get even more irked when it's an all-- like "all guys want to sleep with their female friends". I sometimes comment that a joke is misogynistic and not funny, if I'm willing to deal with the anonymous online insult I'll get in return. But I don't know if this is actually doing any good, or if it just makes people who see it more resentful of some chick coming in and trying to ruin their fun.

It surprises me, because I see so little actual sexism from the people I spend most of my time with. So movies, tv, advertising-- they don't surprise me any more. But individuals? Even on the internet? I know that a lot of them only say the things they do because of the anonymity, but it still surprises me, and wears at me. And after awhile, makes me wonder just how many people out there really do think I'm less of a person, all because of what's underneath my clothes.

*I have a special hate in my heart again the "sammich" jokes because I endured an ex who seemed to think they were the most hilarious thing ever to say to me. Needless to say, I cook for my fiance-- who does not make stupid, sexist, lazy jokes at me-- a whole lot more than I cooked for the ex that did.

**Also, dudes? For most*** women I know, it's less than a week.

***This is the proper way to use most, since this is something that is an empirical fact and I am referring to the subset of women I know, rather than women as a whole.

Body Acceptance, The Gym, And Naked People

Before I started going to Healthworks in Boston, I'd never been to a gym with a naked-place culture.  From my first day at Healthworks though, I noticed that women of all shapes changed out in the open, wandered to the showers nude, and used the hot tub, dry sauna, and steam room naked.  It was the first time in real life I'd seen that much nudity, and even though I wasn't looking, I still managed to realize that there was a LOT of variability in what women were shaped like, and that what someone looks like naked has very little to do with what they look like clothed-- clothes can enhance or detract from someone's appearance, altering it in subtle and major ways, and while I knew that, it was never so obvious as when you see someone strip down in front of you outside of a sexual context.  The naked-place aspect of the locker room isn't something I'd seen a lot of before or since-- maybe it's that people in Boston care less about nudity than those in Ohio or Oklahoma, or maybe it had something to do with the spirit of Healthworks itself.

Healthworks was a lot more body positive in general than many gyms are.  Instead of targeting fat busting or weight loss, their class descriptions talked about strength, endurance, and cardiovascular health.  Their fitness trainers ranged from the typical hot young stereotype of what a female fitness instructor looks like to buff older women who looked like they'd do well in a fight.  And they put in the idea that that you go to the gym for health, but also for fun.

A lot of women--and some men, but more women-- I know have issues with body acceptance.  The ideas behind why people have body image issues are discussed ALL OVER the place, but I think one small thing that could go a long way towards getting people comfortable and happy in their own bodies is to just see the range of shapes others come in, and see that in a neutral, non-sexual context where the body is just there, valueless.  Even if a gym like Healthworks, you can't get completely away from value aspects, since there ARE issues of strength and weakness and muscle, but hell, it's a step in the right direction at least.  Plus, going to the gym generally involves some form of exercise, which tends to get people more in touch with their body and all the awesome things it can do-- whether its yoga, cardio, or lifting, it's hard to hate a body that produces awesome endorphins.

Even though I don't currently go to the gym on a regular basis, it inadvertently cemented a lot of ideas about body acceptance in my head.

Are sci-fi and fantasy fans more likely to be feminist?

Are sci-fi and fantasy fans more likely to be feminist?  I really don't know, but I've been wondering about it lately, and I'm thinking the answer miiight be yes, based solely on anecdotal experience and the themes that showed up in the books I read as a kid.  If anyone knows of any actual, real, hard core data on this, I'd love to know!  But... it's a topic worth thinking about, overlap and interplay between sff and feminism, because some books.movies/games in the sff genres are extremely supporting of feminism, but others really... are not, and lack female characters or at least female characters that are developed in the same way as men and have roles beyond sex object and mother.  Plus, fan culture revolving around certain extremely popular sff franchises can be actively hostile towards women-- so those fans certainly aren't getting any sort of feminism boost.

But my big thought right here is that girls who grow up reading sci fi and fantasy?  i think they're more likely to turn into feminist women than girls who don't.  And this is in large part because, even though it is very easy to find books with extremely harsh male characters and no real female characters of substance, it's also quite easy to find books that are gender neutral or that are directed at girls.  I got to thinking about this for a couple of reasons-- 1. I just read Octavia Butler's oeuvre-- she was a black feminist woman writing sci fi in the 70s and under her own name, 2. I found out about James Tiptree Jr., a popular Scfi author who wrote under an assumed name but who has since been honored with an award for female scifi authors in her name, and 3. a lot of chatter on feminist blogs in the past year or so discussing The Ten Thousand Kingdoms, the third book of which I am STILL trying to get around to reading.

In thinking about some of the formative sci fi and fantasy books of my youth, there are a lot that have female warriors or female characters with power-- The His Dark Materials trilogy, Patricia C. Wrede's The Enchanted Forest Chronicles, Tamora Pierce's Song of the Lioness Quartet, Anne McCaffrey's Pern and Rowan books, and things by William Sleator.  While romance is often a factor in these books, it isn't usually the main focus-- instead, general character development and struggles on a kingdom or world level tend to take place.  Granted, a lot of modern fantasy and sci fi aimed at young adults are just romance novels in different wrapping (and I have to admit, The Vampire Diaries started when people my age were young, and I read them when I was a tween too), but I think that people my age who grew up reading some of these books sort of developed the idea that women are individuals in the same way that men are individuals, rather than just a simple stereotype.

But like I mentioned above, it's really easy to avoid the feministy stuff, especially if a reader doesn't want to follow a female protagonist (and traditionally, surveys have shown that girls are more likely to read stories about boys than boys are to read stories about girls), and a lot of men who grew up on the more male dominated sides of sci fi and fantasy have turned out to expect women to fall into only a few categories and get bitter when women don't follow a certain script of acquiescence.  So I honestly have no clue how things fall out, but I'd love to hear other folks' takes on this.

Valenti's The Purity Myth

A while ago I read Jessica Valenti's book The Purity Myth.  It's a good book!  It's really informative about some societal trends in hating on women's sexuality, which is even more relevant today than it was when it was published, given all the recent attacks on women's reproductive rights.  Buuuut, it has some major flaws.  One of the things it addresses is defining what sex actually is, which is an important thing to talk about since sex is so different for so many people-- most people thing penis-in-vagina is sex, period, but when both partners have penises or both partners have vaginas, or they aren't interested in penetrative sex of any kind, but they're still having sexual experiences together, and possibly even getting more sexual or exploring more kinks that straight up penis in vagina, you've got to think that more things that penis in vagina should count as sex.  So, like many other authors do in many other works, Valenti discusses definitions for sex.

From The Purity Myth, page 20-21, on what sex is: "My closest friend, Kate, a lesbian, has the best answer to date (a rule I've followed since she shared it with me): It isn't sex unless you've had an orgasm.  That's a pleasure-based, non-heteronormative was of marking intimacy if I've ever heard one.  Of course, this way of defining sex isn't likely to be popular among the straight-male sex, given that some would probably end up not counting for many of their partners.
But any way you cut it, virginity is just to subjective to pretend we can define it."

I totally agree that virginity is too subjective to just easily define (because otherwise, there are a gay men and lesbians who've had multiple partners, but who are still virgins), but I still think that defining it by orgasms is problematic and kind of insulting.  It's still framing things through a normative view, in which sex is about the finish rather than the overall experience, and it's framing it in a way that shuts out a lot of women who really like sex but who can't come from penetrative, or oral, or who are still trying to do social programming that makes them too tense to come when they have another person in the room.  These are real issues that you run into if you spend time on blogs or boards where women talk about sex, and framing things from an orgasmic point of view shuts out a very large swath of women who either don't value orgasms that much, or who don't experience them, but who still consider themselves to be having sex.  It ties into what I see as one of the larger problems of sex positivity-- that a lot of sex positive people end up being negative about those who aren't interested in sex, or kink, or multiple partners, possibly because a rejection of those things can feel like negative judgement.  But really, if you're sex positive, you should focus on other people getting joy out of sex, and having sex in the way they like-- whether it's a poly lifestyle with bdsm tones, or someone who waits for a monogamous marriage to do things beyond kiss.  As long as they're being true to themselves, and have thought about the issues and aren't trying to force anyone else into their lifestyle, neither is better than the other.  And for a lot of people, that idea that neither is better than the other also holds true for orgasms during sex.

Work Life Balance: I Don't Quite Understand It?

I've only been working for two months in my first Big Grownup Job, and I'm noooot entiiirely sure how people do this whole work life balance thing.  I get home, and I'm generally not in the mood to cook, so JD's either brought something home or we go out.  Then we come home, I collapse on the couch and read for a big, then I'm in bed by nine and asleep by ten.

My mom cooked dinner every night (granted, she got home at like, 4:30) and graded papers after dinner, but she and my dad still seemed to do more leisure things in the evenings than I did.  I remember my mom was in a bowling league for a while, and my dad would go skiing in the winter and ice skating at other times, and they always made it to my school plays and concerts and had time to pick me up from school every night and drive me to and from practices and competitions every weekend (literally EVERY weekend in high school).  And in highschool, I'd stay up until at least 10 every night, and I had practices and homework, but it never seemed as... stressful and tiring as having a job does?

I think part of the difference is pure age-- I physically have less energy than I did ten years ago-- and part of it is the change in scale of what I'm doing.  How you do in school really only effects you-- even in team competition, you don't have as big an impact on others as you do in a work place.  Now, I worry that messing up on something could really negatively effect someone else, not just myself.  And maybe I'm putting too much of myself into it (my mom says I always internalize everything which, hey, may be true) but I just don't know how to separate home from work.  Even when I'm at home on the weekend doing something unrelated, the thought that I should be researching one of the many work related questions I have is at the back of my mind, constantly.

I'm assuming that as I work longer, I may adapt better-- hopefully both becoming better at doing my job, and finding it easier to take on normal home-related tasks like cooking and cleaning.  I remember that a lot of people were worried JD and I would go crazy when we were spending all day, every day together, but I actually really miss him during the day.  I guess we're one of those weird couples that never get sick of each other, and we're not really out of the honeymoon stage, despite never actually going on a honeymoon.  Our first anniversary was a week ago, so we're still pretty close to being newlyweds.  But just how much time do most people spend with their spouses in those after work hours?  Do most couples spend all evening cuddling and talking, or separated on individual computers, or physically close but watching some tv show together?  I don't know what the normal balance is!  And it isn't like normal matters, as long as individuals are happy in their own lives, but it is something I'm curious about.

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.

Lost knowledge

One of my friends burned herself cooking today. As we chatted online, debating ways to treat it, we eventually realized we didn't know what we were talking about, and turned to Google. It struck me how incredibly useless intelligent, educated people can be-- and how we have never had to know these things. I have a suspicion that in the past, children learned these basic things sometime before they left the home. Now though? We have adults (like myself, if I count as an adult) who have lost this knowledge. Its not a part of out basic back-of-the-brain hum at all.

Now, this knowledge isn't truly lost-- it's clearly available online, at the touch of a few buttons and clicks and search terms. But its not readily available, it isn't there in case of an emergency, and it isn't going to help you if the power or internet is out. And it isn't as if we'd stare at a burn in total confusion-- we each knew enough not to rub on a typical body lotion, full of irritants and possibly oils. But anything beyond the very basics? Just... gone.

In some part, this is surely a product of age-- the internet came about when I was still young enough that my mother would take care of my wounds, and by the time I left the house, even she was regularly using it as a refresher for recipes. So the knowledge that maybe would have normally passed to me... didn't need to. I could cook shrimp pad thai; the instructions were on the Internet! But i didn't have the intuitive sense of how to roast a chicken and veggies, or make a soup from scratch. I never learned the base elements that apply to cooking without needing a recipe-- or the base elements of cleaning a house, mending clothing, and fixing up wounds.

Of course, now I'm learning all these base elements on my own, by trial and error or instructional guide, but it still makes me wonder what's happening to our collective unconsciousness. The more information we have at our fingertips, the less we need to remember. But when we lose basic elements, it also seems like we lose some of the richness of experience, the ability to make connections and comparisons and see metaphors popping up out of daily life. But regardless of the value of remembering things we can look up, we definitely lose the ability to survive as a society after the zombie attack or Apocalypse destroys modern technology, that's for sure. And that's simply unacceptable.

Privacy

One of the things I've been wondering about, and sort of almost struggling with, is what exactly I should be writing here. Or more accurately, what I shouldn't be writing about here. There are a lot of topics that I think "Oh, great, I have awesome anecdotes for that!" only to realize about two seconds later that my anecdotes are only partly mine... and are also partly someone else's. While telling even unpleasant truths about people is perfectly legal, I don't really think that even telling neutral truths is always perfectly moral.

I want to be honest and open in my reactions and experiences, but to be completely honest about my experiences requires me to say things that implicate the privacy of others, be they friends or my past boyfriend. If I can talk about someone completely anonymously, I don't feel as bad-- but while friends from law school can't identify stories about friends from undergrad and vice versa, the most illustrative stories are ones that still usually aren't mine to tell.

I've also been wondering how much is even appropriate to put up about my attitudes-- towards things like religion, relationship, and sex-- because even though this blog is about my attitudes, the context that has formed them sometimes seems necessary.

It's an interesting sea to swim through-- what level of detail about your life would you feel comfortable with in a non-anonymous setting, where you don't know WHO is reading?

Glee

Is Glee...mysoginist?

Man, I hope not. Or rather, I don't think it is-- yet-- at least, not blatantly. But I'll admit, I am worried about the direction it might go. I was thinking about the characters today, because I am loving the show for the entertainment, the small town Ohio, the music, and the whimsy... but all the female charecters are messed up. It got me angry until I realized most of the guys are messed up too... but not in the same ways, or to the same degrees as the girls.

Emma is a great person, but she's lusting after a married man, OCD for comic relief, and dating a guy she doesn't really like, purely because he's persistent. Rachel is up-tight, self-important, a little delusional, and willing to treat others unkindly if it'll help her have the spotlight. Terri is... possibly evil. She's FAKING A PREGNANCY to not lose her husband-- she's demanding, she works part time yet is pissed her husband isn't working more hours to give her more useless stuff. Tina is quiet, background, and not talented, and has been given a stutter for, again, seemingly no reason other than comedy. Mercedes is the sassy black stereotype token charecter, who is awesome in many ways, but who THREW A ROCK THROUGH A CAR WINDSHIELD. Quinn is a stereotypical cheerleader, who has some good traits but is still out to destroy the entire Glee Club in an effort to get her boyfriend's full attention... she's also president of the Chastity Club. Sue Sylvester is the villian of the show-- and deservedly so. She doesn't care about her cheerleaders, only her own self-promotion, being a "champion", and tearing others down.

Kurt is essentially a gay minstrel, but he also manages to give the football team their first win, raising their spirits and saving the day. Ken is a joke-- unattractive, down on his luck with the ladies, and only getting a girlfriend through persistence and reminding her that the community doesn't really have any better single options-- but he's a good friend, and seems like a good guy to keep coaching the joke of a football team. Artie is stuck in a wheelchair--and a nerd. THAT'S IT. He's a bit character with no flaws, though his disability is AGAIN something played for laughs. The principal is controlled by his staff, but again-- funamentally a good guy, working nights as a janitor to help keep the school afloat during the recession.

Finn and Will seem to be the main focus of the show-- They do both have their problems, true-- but Will's is that he's a bit of a wuss, and attracted to a woman who isn't his wife-- but he stays true to her, and will do anything to make life better for his family. He is a fundamentally good guy, who is very selfless, kind, caring, and willing to go the extra mile for his students, too (except for his brief interlude with Acafellas). Finn is, at first, nothing more than a dumb jock-- but he's also extremely caring, surprisingly insightful, and determined to stick by his girlfriend's side, even after he finds out she's pregnant (though they haven't had sex, he thinks its his due to a hot tub incident). Though Finn and Will both have flaws, they are good, and likable, and much less flawed than the rest of the cast.

The characters themselves are what made me think of this-- but it's there in a lot of other ways too. The extremely short skirts the cheerleaders ALWAYS wear (as opposed to just on Fridays!). The MILF jokes. The gay jokes. The cheerleader-bikini scene.the AWFUL sister of Terri, and stereotypes of marriage and child-raising.

But there is good, too. I do like that Rachel gave a speech about girls and sex. I like that abortion is treated by the guys on the show as an option for the teen girl, and that they don't question her choice to keep it. I like that the women do act independently and not subserviently to the men. Kicking out the choreographer who wanted the kids to change things about themselves. Glee has a lot of potential, and I'm really, really enjoying it. But there's also a lot of potential to seriously mess things up. I'm going to keep watching though! And... eventually... buy some of the songs off of iTunes.

(Also, psssst. Go see Jennifer's Body! Yeah, it has some super annoying Cody-speak, but its nowhere near Juno levels-- and the interactions between the girls ROCK. Don't believe me? Read the review on Io9.com)

Philia

We don't say "I love you" enough.

As a society, I mean.

We reserve it for romantic partners and family members, and yes, you want some way to show them they are special, they are above others-- but still. We don't say "I love you" enough.

Think about it. You're probably only in love with one person, tops, but you love others. The feeling we feel for our closest friends is love-- so why are we all so hesitant to express it? Why is there nearly a taboo against us telling the people that we love just that. I know I've only felt comfortable telling friends I love them they are very close, or if someone has died recently. When my friend Steve died two summers ago, I was hit by the fact that he mattered so much to so many people-- and so few of us, myself included, had actually let him know that. Even now, now that I've had peers die sudden unexpected deaths, now that I know I should let people know I love them-- I only tell a few people that I do.

I'd like to show my friends that I appreciate them, that I do love them-- or at least, show the ones that I feel deeper friendship than average. But outside the context of college and sororities and not being fully aware of social boundaries-- I just don't know how to, anymore, without feeling awkward.

Do you tell the people you love-- besides partners, parents, and siblings-- that you love? When do you tell them? How do you tell?

Planned Parenthood

Even though I'm a huge fan of Planned Parenthood, and would love to work for them or a similar organization some day, I had never actually been inside one till yesterday. One of my friends was getting a IUD, which most other doctors did not want to give her since she's never been pregnant-- she knows she does not want children in the next five years, though. I came along with her so she wouldn't have to go alone... in part because it's a new experience, but also largely in case there was anyone outside yelling that we'd go to hell for aborting the babies we aren't pregnant with. There's strength in numbers, and if holding her hand made it easier to go into the clinic, and then easier to walk out after a painful procedure, well, I'm always more than willing to help anyone in that situation.

The local Planned Parenthood looks like a fortress. It always makes me sad that it does, because, well, it's a place where people go to get their genital jabbed at, and get birth control, to get abortions, or to get prenatal care for wanted pregnancies. It offers so many services that are used when someone is at a vulnerable point, and I wish it could look more welcoming... and the fact that it isn't safe to look welcoming makes me incredibly sad. I'll never understand people who use violence, and I'll never understand protesters, especially considering that some of them get abortions after protesting, then go back to protesting.

We were in luck, though-- rain tends to decrease protesters, and it was so grey and gross that there weren't any there at all!

The inside of the Planned Parenthood is so different from the imposing outside! The waiting room is all warm and bright, with awesome colors on the walls and comfy couches. The employees were kind and efficient. Pop music was playing in the background, and a large TV screen was playing on the wall, cycling facts about sexual health and the services that Planned Parenthood offers. Interestingly, the waiting room was not all women. There were 4-5 guys there over the span of time I was there, which is awesome, really.

In contrast to most doctor's offices I've been to, my friend got called into her appointment right on time. She said it went very well-- they were all very respectful of her choice to get an IUD at age 24, and didn't try to talk down to her by telling her that she'd change her mind about kids, or that she was too young to be making this decision-- which is the reason she had to come to Planned Parenthood in the first place, she couldn't find anyone else willing to give an IUD to a woman without children. But she's a young single woman who is going to start her career as an attorney in a few months-- the chances of her wanting a child anytime soon are slim as slim. So now, after a quick and painful, but not too painful, procedure, she's protected against pregnancy for the next 12 years! And the best part? an IUD only cost her around 20 bucks (which is important, because, well, like me, she doesn't have a job and is interested in the ones that are more service oriented.)

I'm very glad that Planned Parenthood exists. It, and places like it, are doing so much to advance sexual knowledge and prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to help people at difficult times.

Committment

I have been accused, at different times, of being a commitment phobe, and of being very into commitment. Neither is exactly true, but both have a ton of truth to them.

I hate the idea of commitment for the sake of commitment, of being in a "relationship" so you won't be single. I hate the idea that being single is something to dread. But, I love being in a committed relationship. I love my boyfriend, and knowing we're faithful to each other brings me... joy, really.

I've had people think my casual attitude towards people having sex outside of relationships means that I don't value commitment. I think that instead, its a sign of how much I do value commitment. I definitely don't look down on friends who sleep around or engage in "slutty" behavior, because I don't think that sex, in itself, deserves to be put on the pedestal that society puts it on. I think that as long as people are being safe and consenting, what they do with their bodies shouldn't be the concern of anyone who isn't involved. If people want to have sex to express their love, to feel good about themselves, to have fun, or because they're bored, I really don't care. I know that sex can influence emotions-- oxytocin, anyone? But I think that, as long as we know the happiness of the afterglow is at least partly chemically derived, we should be able to keep from putting too much value on it.

Putting so much importance on sex and having it only inside a committed relationship makes me wonder if some people rush into relationships only so that they'll feel less shamed about the sex they're having. If, instead of basing their commitment on the idea that they're a person they respect and enjoy and appreciate and care about, they base their commitment on the idea that this is their best balance for regular sex and fun right now. Part of why I wonder this is because of the length of relationships I see-- and the length of the time they date before they commit. I know a lot of people who have had a "committed relationship" that has only lasted a few weeks, or a few months. It also seems like a lot of people don't really date very long before labelling themselves as "in a relationship"-- a few times hooking up, and bam, they either stop seeing each other, or make it official-- or, equally often, continue discretely and secretly hooking up. Secret hook-ups do make sense to me, though, as long as the gossip and awkwardness of friend groups is the concern-- but it sometimes seems that the sex itself is the reason people hide.

I'm not a fan of hiding. I'm also not a fan of rushing into things. What I am a fan of is knowing someone well before you commit to them, of being sure you want them, and not just the sex. Of figuring out what their big flaws are, and whether they're overpowered by everything else. I'm a fan of being patient, and cautious, and sure. How can you trust someone, if the only time you spend together is in bed?

To me, being in love and being in a committed relationship is one of the greatest things in the world. I absolutely adore JD, and I know that I don't want anyone but him, in any way. He's my best friend, my confidant, my partner. Sometime to love, play with, support, and trust. As fun as it can be to be single and dating, I wouldn't have that life for anything now. Nothing makes me happier than seeing him smile at me hearing his voice. And because I didn't rush into this relationship-- because we were involved for months before committing-- I can be certain my choice is based on who we are, and not based on the opinions of anyone else.

Misconceptions about feminism

I've noticed a lot of misconceptions about feminism out there-- and as I've educated myself more on the topic, it's started to bug me when I see people being all blithe about things. So this is part one in n ongoing series on the fact that not all feminists are the same.

When I say I'm a feminist, I mean I believe in the equality of men and women. To be specific, I'm a sex-positive liberal third wave feminist. I am not a radical feminist, even though I am radical in some ways, and I'm not a second-wave feminist. I'm not a formal equality feminist, I'm not a dominance theory feminist, and I'm not a relational feminist. All those different group have things that differentiate them from each other, and are not quite what I am. A lot of critiques of feminism seem to pick and choose bits from each different branch-- and since the branches wildly disagree on a lot of things, they end up painting feminism as a whole as being internally inconsistent and poorly structured.

The thing is, there are different groups that exist under the name feminism, and these individual groups are internally consistent even when they disagree with each other. Just put a dominance theory feminist in a room with a sex-positive feminist. Other than agreeing that women deserve rights, responsibilities, and to be treated as humans, they won't agree on much else. Some feminists think that women can never truly consent to sex with a man; others think that a life as a housewife who has sex with her husband every day is no more nor no less to be desired than a life as a single surgeon, or a lesbian artist in a cooperative living group. Some feminists are essentialists, who think that all women have X characteristic, and all men Y; some think that men and women are fundamentally the same except for societal socialization. Some focus on intersectionality and examining queer women and women of color while others stick to the stereotypical American woman who always seems to end up white and middle class.

Feminism is, fundamentally, the idea that women are people too. Feminism sees problems in the fabric of society and a historical mistreatment of women. Do not assume that just because you have read the works of MacKinnon or Dworkin that I, or any other feminist, must be like them. Listen to people when they tell you what they believe-- it leads to a richer conversation than assuming you know their beliefs and ignoring what they say in favor of continuing with your earlier prejudices.