The Weekend of Gay

This weekend there was a National March for Equality in D.C. with many state marches to provide space for people who weren't in D.C. to join in the efforts. Obama spoke at the HRC dinner. It's the 21st anniversary of National Coming Out Day so there are events, especially on college campuses and increasingly in high schools and middle schools about all that.
Our movement has come so incredibly far, so far that in many ways we're big enough to start fracturing. It happens with so many movements, the women's movement, the black civil rights movement both had fractures within their movements about the way to approach things. So it's not really a surprise.
The thing is, I don't want to pick sides (so long as all the movements stay non-violent). And I really hate it when both sides criticize each other. I'm also torn about this. It's not like we shouldn't challenge all of our movements to be better, but it's doesn't feel so much like an attempt to pressure each other to do better, it feels like a turf war. And that's what I don't like. I don't want anyone spending their energy trying to destroy HRC or ERW. I don't want anyone spending time telling the younger movements to slow down and not push so hard. I wish that there was some way to acknowledge the spectrum of the movement. To recognize that we need some radical people, even if they are sometimes irritating in their ignorance about how to actually pass legislation. To recognize that we need the people who have been lobbying for decades about LGBT equality, even if they are are sometimes irritating in their belief that it's going to take more time before we can achieve greater equality.

Sexism and the Queer Movement

I’m reading the Feminine Mystique right now. One of the things I’m attempting to do – go through some classic feminist texts. For one, I don’t trust the way society reinterprets the texts, but also because I believe for me to ever fully develop as a feminist legal theorists, which is a goal that I have, I need to have the solid foundation. One of the things about the Feminine Mystique that is standing out for me is the vitriolic reaction to women trying to establish themselves as full human beings.
Clergy, politicians, and average males violently fought against women owning property, voting, existing in the public sphere. Women died for this struggle. One of the thoughts that I want to figure out how to develop is the idea that struggle against gay marriage and gay existence is based in sexism. As a movement, our favorite comparison is to that of anti-miscegenation efforts. There is a distinctive similarity in the legal struggle and the logic employed by those upholding the discriminatory laws, namely that that because everyone is treated equally in the ban, it isn’t discriminatory (i.e., because all blacks can only marry all black, but the same is true that whites can only marry whites OR since all men can only marry women, but the same is true that all women can only marry men).
Nevertheless, this comparison is shortsighted and forgets to ask, “Why is there such resistance?” In the case, of anti-miscegenation laws, the basis was racism, a belief in the need to use the law to protect the purity of the races. As with the anti-gay marriage movement, there was a willful desire to ignore the fact that regardless of the laws, people fall in love and the passion involved in that feeling made many people ignore the law and live their lives dangerously, knowing full-well that they could be beat on the street or sometimes prosecuted for their relationships. But the reason is not the same.
The reasoning cited in the anti-gay movement engages in sexist rhetoric. There are discussions of disrupting the traditional family. The cornerstone argument against women’s equality. Much of the language about the detriment of same-sex marriage mirrors the resistance to women’s equality. I believe that the LGBT movement does itself and the movement a disservice by not exploring the overlap of sexism embodied in the movement that has so much to do with sex.
Is part of the struggle against homosexuality embodied in the desire to have women’s sexuality constantly available, the fear of heterosexual men losing their importance? Is the fear of gay men on the part of straight men based in the idea of how little respect males are trained to have for their sexual objects in our society? Several studies have showed that more than 1/3 of college-aged men would rape a woman if they could get away with it, and 1 out of 2 would force themselves upon a woman (i.e., rape by another name) if they knew they could get away with it. Is the idea of being viewed by men in the way that they view women the basis of fear of the homosexual male? There seems to be some sort of truth in this idea, especially in light of the collective acceptance of the idea that the heterosexual male is justified in using force to respond to even the suggestion of attraction on the part of a homo/bisexual male.

It's not about the Old People

Okay - here's a pet peeve of mine. Domestic Partnerships are not about the old people. It sometimes makes me feel a little dirty how our movement is using them.
You see for the domestic partnership laws, several states have wooed the senior vote by including them in the domestic partnership law. The idea is essentially it allows legal recognition of an important relationship without interfering with federal benefits and pensions available to widows (and the occasionally widower). But gay people (as a general overarching amorphous group) don't want domestic partnerships. We want marriage. We want an end to discriminatory laws around marriage. We aren't really seeking a better understanding of protecting ways that we organize our families that don't fit within an outdated male/female and then children nuclear family model.
We will also readily throw our 62+ people under the bus and not even acknowledge that's what we're doing. So when we have this everything but marriage d.p. law and the fight to keep the law in place (i.e. to approve the Referendum) and we talk about the benefit it provides seniors, we are neglecting to realize that if we end up converting domestic partnerships into marriage, they will lose all the benefits they were trying to have protected.
Maybe some people are fine with this, but I'm not. We need to have a non-marriage option that allows people certain legal connections without all the economic and other complications. Something that merely says, you're the person who gets to be there and make decisions when I'm sick you can make decisions for me and visit me regardless of our bloodline (without having to understand all the various types of powers of attorney and spending all the money on lawyers to get it).
Okay that's all for now. And probably for tonight as I'm blowing this popsicile stand - if I do turn the computer back on it will be for other work, not for blogging.

Women's Space and More

Amazing how easy it is to fall of the wagon. It's been almost two weeks since my last post. It's not that I'm not thinking about the world around me. On the contrary, I'm thinking and engaging with it, which is part of why I wanted this pressure of trying to do a daily blog. I want to be thinking about things, not just engaging in the world.
Anyway some thoughts:
Women's Space: For some reason the issues of women's space, particularly in the world of the Michigan Women's Festival. One of the things that has come up is a complaint that they don't allow men in, even trans men. Forgive me if I mentioned this thought before here - but Women's space is important. As is any separate space for minorities. Interesting how we don't question it with religious institutions. Don't question that sometimes a space where you can share your experiences and build your community is important. Interesting how it's accepted for male golf clubs and other clubs that provide access points to power. No - we question it about spaces that are meant to be sources of empowerment. So often we cut down places and events that work to create greater equality, confidence, power, etc.
I was on a website where people were critiquing the women's movement, and I had to chime in and add my two cents (shocking I know). But really, the women's movement has fought like hell to give us the vote, reproductive choices (I'm talking about access to even learning about birth control, not just abortion), sexual freedom, equal pay, nondiscrimination in employment and education. And so much more.
Is it perfect? No. But I'm not entirely sure that perfection is capable of progress. We exist in a world where things seem to have to happen incrementally. It's not really my preference, but I will take some progress over no progress. I also think it's important to realize that we have no idea what we're going to think in 20 years. We don't know how our ideas about gender, race, sexuality, etc., are going to evolve. The trans experience was virtually non-existent in the public arena 20 years ago. Which isn't to say that there were no trans folks, it's just to say that we didn't really know it existed.
We also barely acknowledge intersex individuals, and they are probably more prevalent than trans individuals, but as a society, we are more comfortable with a gender binary - so I think in many ways we'd rather have trans than intersex. In many ways trans identity doesn't make us question our gender binary. There are two and maybe sometimes you're born in the wrong body, but there are still two.
It's kind of like people understanding homosexuality more than bisexuality. Somehow the grey area or the flexibility is more threatening to our own identities.

Okay that's all I've got for now. Too many other things to do. But maybe I'll get back on the wagon.

When Does Congress Legislate Medical Procedures?

I'm listening to Carheart right now and am curious, aside from abortion, what medical procedures does Congress try to legislate? I'm guessing there is research out there about this, and I will try to look into it.

Women's Athletics and Equality - Responding to my First Comment

Well this is exciting. I've received my first comment, by someone I don't even know. What's even more exciting about it, is that it teases out differences in agreement. Helen and I share an interest and passion for women's athletics, particularly it seems, the WNBA. She had some interesting points and some points I disagree with, so this post is about exploring this issue further.

1) Women in the WNBA make less because it's a business and that's what their business model can afford to pay them. (This isn't exactly what Helen said, but I think it's the point she was getting at.)

I don't think there's any disagreement in this theory. The analysis is really about why is there such a disparity? Let's talk t.v. and media coverage. I'm a Seattleite. The Storm are my team. One year a win during the play-offs did not make the cover of the sports page. Instead it was something about some male sports team in the off-season. Seattle also apparently has some of the best coverage in the WNBA. The standard response to this kind of critique is that news is a business and they are printing what people want to read (side note, I disagree with this premise, but will, for the sake of discussion accept it for this discussion). That argument creates a chicken and the egg debate. Are people not interested and therefore news doesn't publish stories, or are people not interested because the news doesn't publish stories?

I think don't either answer would be completely correct. From my own personal experience, I will say the more I learn about the ins and outs of the league and my team, the more invested I am in the season (having had season tickets since almost the beginning, and even when I haven't had season tickets, going to almost every game, I know that some seasons I care more about making every game). When I understand the importance of a game, a match-up, etc., it's more exciting. Understanding all of this is largely dependent on being told. I was pretty much anti-professional sports prior to the Storm, so my learning curve is steep. Not as steep as it would be if I hadn't played basketball at some point in my life. Getting this information can be challenging.

It is hard it is to watch the games or even listen to the games when I'm not at the game. I don't get AM radio in many places, I can't stream the online version at work (my work doesn't filter, I just can't seem to make the radio station play and the WNBA pass online to watch it doesn't work, and not really going to ask IT about it). Unlike the MLB, there's no app I can purchase on my iPhone to hear all the games (although the ESPN app is awesome).

The easy to access information (i.e., a local paper), barely covers the local team, let alone providing information that could allow you to get excited about the league. My dad tries to track the NY Liberty because Lelani Mitchel is a Washington native, and there are never any articles about any team other than the Storm (and limited articles about them, but always the box score) in the Tri-City Herald (for non-Washingtonians, this would be the south eastern side of the state, which is more rural/small city).

In contrast, I could care less about the Seattle Sounders (soccer) or the Seahawks (football), but it is impossible to avoid knowing how these teams are doing. Their wins sometimes make the front page of the entire paper, not just the sports page. I know (though don't waste the memory cells) which male teams make it to the March Madness Final Four (the fact that I even know there's a March Madness speaks volumes). I do not know, without extending effort, which female teams are in the female equivalent (in fact I don't even know if it's March or what it's called) (I'm not really into college ball, but because of my love of the Storm, I have actually toyed with the idea of at least going to a few games).

2) Title IX
Title IX is my pet law. I love Title IX. However the improvement over the past 10 years cannot be attributed to Title IX. The reality is that Title IX has been a law since 1972 (we could even use 1975 as the date, since that was when schools were supposed to be in compliance). Assuming kids enter the school system when they're 5, women who are 39 grew up with Title IX in place. If you acknowledge that it's probably about middle school where sports begin to get serious, theoretically, anyone who was about 13 in 1975 grew up with Title IX in place (i.e., 48 year olds).

That theory aside, NO school has ever had equality (which I would define as proportionate spots available, so if you had a school of 100 and 60 students were female and 40 were male, for every 6 out of 10 athletic positions available would go to female athletes). In fact we've never even had 50-50 compliance. As of 2000, there were only four colleges in "compliance" with Title IX which at that time was essentially that female athletes represented 40% of the athletic population. The regulation the Bush Administration passed through evolved the "meeting athletic interest prong," which was modified to allow schools to fill out a survey (with no guidelines on how that survey would be filled out) and if women didn't seem interested they wouldn't need to make any effort to provide female athletes opportunities to compete.

Between that and all the backlash against female athletes based on a mis-guided blame for the loss of male sports on Title IX, throughout the last 10 years, female participation opportunity in colleges athletics is actually taking a bit of a hit. This is why, even though without Title IX there is no way we would have the WNBA, Title IX cannot be attributed to the improvement in the league.

In fact, I believe the league is what can be attributed to improvement in the league. The fact that girls who play basketball have something that inspires them, is huge. The fact that putting in the time and energy in high school and college might actually lead to a career doing something the love is huge. I still remember playing hoops the first time after I watched a WNBA game (sadly I was away at school for the ABL season, so I missed all their games). For the first time in my life, I shot hoops envisioning myself at the buzzer of an important game making the winning shot. Representation is huge.

3) Doing Something Else/Comparison to the Past
It's hard to figure out how to respond to this because there's so much embodied in it. First, one of my main points is that professional female athletes should be able to play the season and not have to do other things (other than all those endorsements and whatnot involved in professional athletics). So saying they could do other things is a non-sequitor. The women playing for the WNBA are getting to live a dream. Allowing the inequality to end the league would achieve the opposite of what I think we both want.

Second, I don't think that the commitment of today's WNBA players should be pitted against the AAU players. The reality is that both leagues are fighting the same fight. Female athletics would not be where it is today if girls and women had not always been fighting for opportunities to play. The WNBA is carrying that torch.

4) Success. The comment of how I'm measuring success misunderstands what I mean when I said that female athletes will be seen as inferior. I bet fans of the NBA have never had to sit near other spectators at a game who claim that it's not a real sport and they aren't real athletes. When I said inferior, it is the lack of value female athletes receive for the athletic achievements because they are not male. I don't think I will see a day where female athletes are seen as real athletes by most men, and a lot of women. Sadly, I think until we reach a society where sexism does not run as rampant as it does in our society, female athletes will always be treated with a bit of a patronizing tone. I also think as the gap between men and women and their success in the public spheres increases, that sports will be held on to as firmly as possible as the last bastion of male superiority (and this isn't an original thought, there's a great book called The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Love Football that explores this in more depth).

Expanding on the Get Back in the Closet Comment

The Referendum 71 post was something I put up on my Facebook page - and there's a thought in that piece that I want to explore explaining further.

In my mind a big part of what this bill is about is really an opinion poll on the legitimacy of my existence (and that of all other gay people, coupled, singled, etc.). Most people (on either side) are not going to take the time or effort to understand what is at stake. If King5's report that I watched today is any indication, media is going to do very little to provide accurate information. Basically what people are voting on is how much the state can discriminate against the gays. If we approve the law, we're saying the level of discrimination should be minimal, possibly even indicating that we reject this stupid separate but totally unequal set-up. If those voting to reject it win, they will be saying go back in the closet faggot/dyke.

The thing is I believe that all the Defense of Marriage Acts, the Constitutional Amendments banning marriage, etc. have far less to do with actually trying to prevent gay and lesbian people from existing. I don't even think any of them truly believe that it stops us from having children. Florida and Oklahoma are the only states that have taken serious steps with regard to preventing us from having children. Or at least from adopting.

So when the fight actually accomplishes little, at least substantively, what is it about? Sure it's a culture war. But is it really that simple? What is the point of all of it? Why on earth do people spend so much time fighting over whether other people can have a life with the same legal protections as other couples? What do they gain from it? Why on earth is it worth the energy? We are constantly being told we're an apathetic society, yet people will rail against things like same-sex marriage and abortion. They will devote their lives to fighting against it. In some situations they will even be violent, to the point of murder over these things. This is what I don't understand. Is it possible to understand? And let's be honest the point of understanding would be to change behavior. Not to stop it necessarily (well except for that killing people thing), but to refunnel it. Imagine that kind of veracity for fighting drop-out rates, ending child-hunger, or so many other causes that promote a better life.

Referendum 71 - What it is and What Will Happen?

I was just talking with my roommate and realize that there is probably a lot of confusion about what Referendum will do (and genuine confusion, not crazy conservatives who think rejecting the law will make it so same-sex couples don't have children - way to go King5 for providing that completely inaccurate b.s. some air time).

Okay, so first, what is a referendum?
A referendum is a process for citizens to vote on a law before it becomes final. It happens after the legislature passes the bill and after the governor signs it. To do this, you have to first gather enough signatures to put it on the ballot (equal to four (4) percent of the total votes cast for the office of Governor in the last regular gubernatorial election). Once you have reached that threshold, the issue goes to the ballot. The vote before the citizens then becomes "I approve the law" or "I reject the law." If enough people approve the law, it then becomes the law of the land.
The Secretary of State's explanation is also available here: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/ReferendumQuickFacts.aspx

What Happens if voters Reject the Domestic Partnership Law?
The referendum only deals with the most recent domestic partnership law. Our state already has two domestic partnership laws on the books. The rights and responsibilities embodied in these laws will continue unchanged (death and dying benefits, community property, divorce, etc. (you can see a January 2008 Note I posted that discusses the second bill). Regardless of the outcome, we will still have Domestic Partnerships in Washington, they will just not have the as many rights.
We were probably about half way to having all the rights of marriage, the new bill took us the rest of the way. The summary of the new bill describes it as:
Declares that for all purposes under state law, state registered domestic partners shall be treated the same as married spouses. Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit, or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was a spouse, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a state registered domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a state registered domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual.
Provides that the act shall be liberally construed to achieve equal treatment, to the extent not in conflict with federal law, of state registered domestic partners and married spouses.

I really haven't done an analysis of what the two previous laws provided versus the third law (really together they are approximately 300 pages). What I do know is that there are three big things in the most recent law:
(1) The legislature's expression that what they are attempting to create is a segregated marriage structure. Hets get marriage; gays get domestic partnership, but the state should view both institutions the same.

(2) Presumption of parentage - this extends the legal presumption that if one partner has a child during the domestic partnership, the other person will be presumed to be the other legal parent unless they take formal steps denying parentage. This already exists for heterosexual married couples (even for alternative reproduction). While this is a lovely provision, it's not something any lawyer I know would want you to hang your family security hat on. The reason being that you connection to the child would be based on your relationship to your partner. The fear (and legitimately so) would be that you would travel to a state that rejected domestic partnerships and they wouldn't recognize your relationship to the child because it was based on the relationship to your partner, which they don't recognize. Thus, despite this change, as long as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and baby DOMAs exist, interstate travel really isn't available for gay families.

(3) The new bill takes away the easy out for gay couples dissolving their relationship. Currently if you get registered and you don't have property or kids, you basically get to just file something saying you broke up. The new bill makes you go through a real divorce.

You can find out more about the new almost law if you want by going here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5688&year=2009

In my mind a big part of what this bill is about is really an opinion poll on the legitimacy of my existence (and that of all other gay people, coupled, singled, etc.). Most people (on either side) are not going to take the time or effort to understand what is at stake. If King5's report that I watched today is any indication, media is going to do very little to provide accurate information. Basically what people are voting on is how much the state can discriminate against the gays. If we approve the law, we're saying the level of discrimination should be minimal, possibly even indicating that we reject this stupid separate but totally unequal set-up. If those voting to reject it win, they will be saying go back in the closet faggot/dyke. And yes I do believe that is not some sort of visceral reaction or extreme response. I say this because it is not like Referendum 71 eliminates Domestic Partnerships. A rejection of the most recent D.P. law won't prevent us from existing, from falling in love, from wanting our relationships recognized by our friends, family, and state (and for some people churches, but churches get to decide what to do regardless of the law). We will still find ways to have children (foster, adoption, alternative reproduction). We will still occasionally break up. We will still die. Rejecting Referendum 71 only means that we will not have the structures that have developed to address the issues that arise as our families grow and change that have developed for families with a heterosexual couple at its helm.

WNBA and the impact of inequality on women's bodies

The best players in the WNBA are dropping like flies. They are suffering from injury after injury because, while the WNBA season is only a few months long, most of the players play internationally. They play internationally partly because of the discrimination that exists in the league. If I remember correctly from some research I did a little while ago, the lowest paid NBA player makes more than the best highest WNBA player. By about 10 times. So women ball players play year round, partly because they make better money overseas. Probably also partly because the WNBA season is so short and these women love this game. They have to. The amount of resistance they face in our society for being strong females is insane.
Playing overseas means the WNBA players get NO time off. Their bodies get no down time to recoup and heal. They are constantly pushing themsevles beyond that of what any normal human being does with their body. And far past what any male player is forced to do.
Female ball players are insanely committed, proving once again that women have to work harder and be better in order to be seen as still inferior. And proving once again how passionate they are that they will fight like hell until eventually we get through this moment in time. And things are better than they used to be. I grew up without professional women's basketball. And the quality of play in the last 10 years has improved exponentially.

Kidnapping

Recently a girl was found. She had been kidnapped in at the age of 11 in 1991. At the age of 14, after being raped who knows how many times, she had a child. Four years later, sometime around the age of 18, she had another child. It is unclear, but it an earlier draft article made mention that she had and the two children hadn't been allowed access to any medical care. She would have been 14 years old when she bore the first child, and I cannot help but wonder if she received any medical attention during her pregnancy or while in childbirth either time. But when she was a 14 year old having a baby, didn't anyone wonder about what was going on?

At this moment, the article for the story is "Kidnapping Victim Was Not Always Locked Away." Implicit in this title is victim blaming. Despite being abducted from home at the age of 11 told who knows what about your parents, told who knows what about what's going on and why it's going, while being brutally assaulted (they haven't actually described the details of the sexual assaults, but any time any one under at least 15 is forced to have sex it cannot be anything other than a brutal act. Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, 14 and 15 year olds are so young, their bodies are not developed. Until your body is destroyed in so many ways that has to be the most terrible and painful experience.

But the article is already victim blaming. Trying to give us some assurance that if it had been us, or our chilrden we wouldn't have let this terrible thing happen to us. Forget that she was only 11 or that she was pregnant and having children around the time she might have begin growing into a more adult body and maybe beginning to develop a rebellious streak. Now imagine probably barely remembering the world, having no idea what reality is. Not understanding why you haven't been rescued at this point, probably believing it's what you deserve, probably trying to figure out how to make the best of your situation.

There are some astonishingly horrible people out there. This man was one of them. In addition, to holding this woman captive as his sex slave, and who knows what else, he is apparently suspected in several murders.

another one of the freaky things about this, is he had a female accomplice. Maybe it's because I'm numb to idea of men being brutal that this question comes out, but I just don't understand how any woman could be involved in all this. I mean, your "husband" is sleeping with children and is impregnating (through rape) a young girl. In what kind of world is there anything okay with assisting in this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/us/29abduct.html

Stats from Other Sources

Senator Kennedy died today. Fought for public health insurance for a better part of his career and sadly he didn't get to see it happen.

It's late, and I have a headache, so no deep thoughts, but in an effort ot continue the daily commitment here are some stats from national women's orgs.

• More than 17% of women are uninsured, and even more are underinsured.
• Between 1999 and 2008, health insurance premiums increased 119 percent — 3.5 times more than wages during the same period.
• 3 in 5 women are unable to pay her medical bills.
• Women only make $.78 to a man's dollar.
• The U.S. has no guaranteed medical leave for childbirth; we're trailing 168 countries in the company of only Lesotho, Liberia, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland.
• The U.S. is near the bottom of the list -- again -- in our public support for quality childcare for children of working parents.
• Women only make up 16% of our representatives in Congress.
• And our right to safe, accessible, legal abortion is threatened by hostile state legislators as well as by domestic terrorists who intimidate, harass and even kill health care providers.

Abortion

I had a pleasant conversation with a friend today. One of many topics that came up was abortion. Here's one of the things about the whole abortion debate that I think gets lost and I think it's a very important to remember the history of the judicial history of women's reproduction freedom.

1965 - Griswold v. Connecticut - The first time the Court declares that there is a right to privacy in the bedroom. The idea is that a married couple should be able to decide whether or not they want to use contraceptives.
1972 - Eisenstadt v. Baird - The court extends the right to use contraception to nonmarried women.
1973 - Roe v. Wade - Court extends the right of birth control and the zone of privacy to include abortion.

In a span of 8 years, we went from a society where the criminalization of birth control was considered constitutional to a society where women suddenly had a great deal of control over their bodies.

Around the same time, it also became illegal to discriminate on the basis sex when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. In 1972 the law banning sex discrimination in education was passed.

The world was rapidly changing. And many people were unhappy with it. There has been a fight raging against women's full participation in society from before the laws ever passed.

Discretely there are fights in the courts that continually try to narrow the definition of sexual harassment. Insurance companies will regularly pay for Viagra, but will refuse to cover birth control.

The biggest fight, which attempts to shade itself as something other than an attempt to control women's bodies, is the fight around abortion. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that some people really struggle with questions about where life begins. Here's the thing, studies show that the people who attempt to eliminate abortion also don't believe in provide support to children once they're born. They don't support early support programs, they don't support free lunch programs, they don't support affordable child care, or increasing paid family leave.

Don't get me wrong, even if the government fully funded all of the expenses of having children, it would not mean that abortion should be outlawed, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the anti-abortion movement and why it should never be allowed to be called the "pro-life" movement.

The anti-abortion movement, by attempting to frame it in some sort of distorted picture of protecting fetuses gets to harass women, doctors, and other health care providers under some sort of moral superiority. They rarely get called out on the sexist nature of their movement because too much of society has bought into this idea that it is about some sort of amorphous beginning of life point. The anti-abortion movement even threatens and follows through on its threats to kill actual human beings involved in providing health care to women. The vast majority of the anti-abortion proponents also object to teaching sex-ed in schools, preferring abstinence only education.

Full disclosure, I have no problem with abortion. I don't know and I don't really care at what point life begins. There are far too many children unwanted children abandoned in foster care. A system that fails miserably at serving the children in its care. I also don't think women's bodies should ever be incubators. It is far too high a demand to place on the body. Sex is not a crime and women should not be punished for lopsided consequences.

I would also like to point out that if anti-abortion activists were really interested in eliminating unwanted pregnancy, males would be expected to get snipped. It's a relatively easy procedure that is reversible. If every male had to go in and affirmatively state that he was attempting and ready to have children prior to having the getting his sperm released again, there would be a whole lot fewer accidental pregnancies in the world. Sadly I think this would also greatly increase the number of stds.

You will never find this proposal existing, despite the number of times in our history that women have been sterilized because of sexism. Men want their sperm to be able to impregnate women, even if they don't actually want to impregnate a woman. I've never understood it. I don't think I can understand it, but whenever this idea is floated around in the presence of males, they are greatly opposed to it. Only thing that can explain it to me is sex stereotyping.

Discouragement

I'll never understand this kind of comment: "Not every man/woman issue is necessarily about the persecution of women. If you rant about every potential man/woman dynamic, more mainstream peeps will assume you're a wacko, which will detract from the message of the very important overall cause for which you're fighting."

The person who said this to me is the husband of one my favorite people. He and I have had less than a half a dozen conversations. The very first conversation we had almost destroyed my relationship with my best friend. He was an ass from the first moment we met and I couldn't understand how my friend would be with a guy who was so belligerent. And almost six years later, he pulls this garbage. If you want to challenge the legitimacy of an idea, let's do it. Although you better come with facts and be willing to accept mine. But that's not what this comment is about. This comment doesn't care if every single issue is based in fact, this comment embodies the idea that even thinking or speaking about injustice should be silenced. This comment is one white man's privilege not wanting to accept and believe that heterosexism is pretty much everywhere.

Here's the thing people like him, with their pretend helpful advice, damage the soul. It makes you think twice when caring about the important things. And really that's the purpose of that kind of comment.

You see the issue that he decided to share his unsolicited and unwanted advice about, was about an 18 year old female athlete whose gender is being challenged because people are questioning whether she's too good of an athlete to be female. And the thing is, it's not like they are trying to figure out if she is male. They're just trying to do invasive testing to figure out if she might have too many "male" characteristics to be considered female for the purposes of continuing to compete. This patneralistic protectionism of women from other women, isn't about protecting women from other women. But it pretends enough that it can be sold as a spin story.

Here are some real stories:
(1) When women are strong, their femaleness is questioned. The belief that women are weak and inferior is so pervasive that to ensure that we hold on to that myth, we will create all sorts of tests and hoops to weed out who the real women are. The injustice of the testing that is done on female athletes is even more blatantly sexist when one realizes, only female athletes are tested. No one thinks that a strong male athlete might have any potentially female characteristics, where if this were somehow about gender purity, every endurance athlete should be tested for potential female genetic markers. Science has shown that women's bodies are more suited to endurance sports. So maybe the reason Lance Armstrong is so incredible, maybe he really is a little bit female.
(2) It also exposes that the gender binary that we exist in. There really is no medical doubt that there gender goes beyond male and female. There are a broad range of intersex individuals. There is more to gender than male and female. It's hard to wrap our minds around. We have so much invested in this binary, but it doesn't change the reality. It makes things complicated. There are gendered differences between males and females (and the spectrum). The ability for girls and women to have real opportunities to compete is incredibly important. The self-esteem and real physical benefits are vast.
Another concern is what kind hierarchy will we create if we start defining a multitude of genders? As a female this concerns me, because we are always seen as the weaker sex and I wonder what will happen with an array of sexes. I also have a hard time wrapping around how societies will adjust. Will we do some sort of range of genetic/biological testing at birth so we can appropriately categorize people? Can you do them conclusively at birth or will the tests have to be done again at puberty?
I don't know many things. I know that the questions are difficult and despite the hubby of my good friend's suggestion, the answers are not going to come by silencing ourselves.

Ledbetter Act Passes

One of Congress' and Obama's first acts as we watch Bush retreat away is the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
A little background: When Lilly was about to retire from Goodyear, she learned that during the duration of her career, she like most women, was making substantially less then her mail colleagues. She sued, and like so many things in the law, the case became obsessed with procedure over substance. No one claimed that she didn't make less. No one claimed that the reason she was paid less was because of gender discrimination. The fight centered around when she filed the case. In the law, there's something called the Statute of Limitations. The statute of limitations is a concept that basically argues that there should be some finality in life. If you hit someone in a bar in 1999, in 2020, they shouldn't be able to sue you for assault. It's a simple doctrine. For things that are obvious, like an assault, you even have two years to sue. But sometimes you don't always know that you've been injured, which is what the discovery doctrine adjust for, it's a doctrine that exists that says the Statute of Limitations is tolled (legal word meaning put on pause) until you discovery the injury.

Goodyear argued that the Statute of Limitations had expired because the Lilly started making less money from the moment she was hired and far more then the 180 days provided in the Fair Pay Act had passed. The lawyers for Lilly argued that every new paycheck was a new act of discrimination and therefor able to be sued on. The Conservative majority of our Supreme Court that doesn't believe in logic or the rule of law, sided with Goodyear (oh they apparently don't have common sense either, since the only place I've worked where you were allowed to be open about how much you were paid was the government - so how was she supposed to know anyway).

Congress used it's legislative power and amended the act to make it clear that the right to sue restarted at every single paycheck. Of course, conservatives are calling this a windfall for attorneys. And of course, like always, the media lets it slide. Seriously folks, if you don't discriminate you won't get sued. The only windfall that existed was the Supreme Court's original ruling. A ruling that says that you have to know and complain within your first six months of employment pretty much guarantees no one will ever file a claim. Oh well, it's not like I'll ever understand how helping someone protect their rights is such a bad thing. But then the way the conservatives have been able to co-opt the national dialog is why our economic recovery package includes tax cuts. Only people attempting to cripple our government would believe that when you have an enormous debt and almost a decade's worth of negligence on maintaining our society's infrastructure should you provide tax cuts.