Wikileaks & Sexual Assault & DemocracyNow!

One of the things I truly enjoy about DemocracyNow! is the way that it shows the nuances there can be between people who are theoretically on the same side of an issue. The discussion between Jaclyn Friedman, executive director of Women, Action & the Media a charter member of CounterQuo and the editor of the hit anthology Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape and Naomi Wolf, feminist, social critic and author of seven books, including The Beauty Myth and The End of America.
They both identify as feminists and neither one of them is one of those fake feminists (i.e., where they argue that it is a feminist position that women should be heterosexual, married, and shouldn't work). They engaged in a heated and very interesting debate about rape and it raises some interesting questions about the issue of consent.
Wolf basically argues that Assange did not commit rape. She conceded it would be rape if he had sex with someone who was asleep, but she says that the woman was not asleep, she was half asleep, she woke up and they talked about sex and he promised her he didn't have HIV/AIDS (apparently she didn't ask about any other STDs) and after his reassurances she consented to sex.
Friedman basically argues, no he actively engaged in sex with her while she was sleeping. When she woke up, he pressured her to have sex with him. She also called b.s. on Wolf's argument that victims of rape basically run and hide from any connection to the perpetrator. This argument that Wolf attempted to make was profoundly disappointing and makes it appear that she has never done much research or been involved in services supporting survivors of rape. As Friedman pointed out, it is actually quite common for survivors of sexual assault, especially by known assailants to continue to interact. It is also not that uncommon for some women to later engage in consensual sex with the perpetrator, many theorists believe this is done in an attempt to reclaim control over the situation, that by having consensual sex it somehow mitigates the feeling of violation from the previous encounter.
It was also a little disturbing how Wolf blew of the torn clothing. She laughed it off in a way that seemed to be saying that sex often gets rough and exciting, and ripping cloths is part of the fun, so it's ridiculous to use torn cloths as support of rape.

Wolf also alluded to the idea that these women's were groupies so of course they would consent to sex with Assange. I couldn't help but get a flashback to the days of Clinton. There is something about men in power, whether it be because they are presidents, rebellious media moguls, or football players, society seems to believe that it is impossible that women would not consent to sex with them. Apparently all women, all the time, even when they're asleep.

Anyway, there discussion is more interesting than my rant, so check it out.

Part 1: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/20/naomi_wolf_vs_jaclyn_friedman_a
Part 2: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/21/part_iifeminists_debate_sexual_allegations_against

Wikileaks & Sexual Assault

A hot topic on the international media these days is Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Wikileaks has been publishing a large number of confidential cables that provide more insight into the way the U.S. engages in foreign affairs and internal thoughts about other governments and policies. There has been a large backlash to this publications by many in mainstream media and by the U.S.
At basically the same time as all this is going on, Assange has been arrested for sexual crimes. This is pretty much all the news says about it, I suspect because this is true, at least in the U.S. because few people in the U.S. would think Assange's behavior is criminal - from the little snippets I have been able to gather through articles, the main issue seems to be refusing to wear a condom. There are two women involved and they both apparently had a bit of a crush on Assange, were possibly groupies. It sounds like Assange may have gotten forceful with one woman and she acquiesced and tried to insist on his wearing a condom, which he apparently did, but then refused to pull out and reapply when it somehow broke. The other woman woke up to Assange having sex with her without a condom.
In Sweden, their criminal code is far more progressive than anywhere in the U.S. (at least that I'm aware of) and has a category of "less severe" rape, which, according to the New York Times is commonly invoked when men in relationships use threats or mild degrees of force to have sex with partners against their will. Maximum penalty - 4 years.
In the U.S. (in a vast majority of states), the marital exemption, means that being in a marital relationship prohibits the ability to be charged with anything other than a violent rape (i.e., use of deadly force).
Right now so many of the conservative pundits are anti-Assange to such a degree that they seem to be not even care why he is in jail. These same pundits would likely argue that the state is interfering to much with people's private lives. And it does bring up some interesting questions about autonomy and respect. So often in the U.S. we equate rape with having to be a completely violent act. There is even a judge who through out a violent stranger rape case because the victim asked the perpetrator to wear a condom (he didn't) but the judge concluded that asking to wear a condom was equivalent to consent. Given our reluctance in the U.S. to acknowledge, prosecute and convict rapist when no means no for any reason, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around what would happen if we prosecuted people for a "no, but not because I don't want to sleep with, just that I don't want to sleep with you without a condom." In our society, where women aren't allowed to say because they don't want to have sex with a date, a popular guy, a football player - would we ever be willing to accept it as a violation of human integrity worthy of criminal sanctions to violate a request to wear a condom? And how forceful of a request does it have to be? Is a simple, "do you have a condom?" enough? What if she says "it's okay if you don't."? Do you have to try to fight him off after he refuses to wear a condom?
And it's interesting when considered in conjunction with the U.S. laws that do allow for criminal charges against someone who willfully engages in sexual activity that s/he knows could infect his/her sexual partners with HIV/AIDS (I'm not sure if this applies to any other STDs). This is regardless of whether the sexual partner asked the person to use a condom.

On a complete side-note, Assange and some supporters say that the sexual assault charges are bogus and merely backlash against the latest wikileaks. While I recognize this is possible, there does seem to be a similar pattern of doing what you want regardless of the impact on others. He also would be far from the last person who has used his fame as an excuse for behavior, believing that his fame allows him to do whatever he wants to women who are interested (regardless of the level of interest).

Sexual Harassment

Nineteen years ago, the Thomas Clarence Supreme Court confirmation hearings put the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace on the national scene in a way nothing before or since has done.  When Anita Hill testified about Thomas’ alleged actions, which included forcing her to look at porn, describing his sexual escapades, and of course the pubic hair on the coke can. 

Thomas’ alleged actions repulsed many Americans.  While there may have been doubt in some people’s mind in the classic he said/she said battle, it seemed (or at least to my young mind) rather universal that no one should have to put up with these behaviors in the workplace.  This was actually a sea change.  Not under the microscope, and not put together in a collective pattern of behavior, these behaviors were previously just seen as part of the workplace and if women want to join the workplace, they just need to put up with it, or get back in the domestic kitchen. 

The case of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas was particularly interesting because of the race component (this is said of course recognizing that race always exists, so specifically that this was a case between two black individuals).  Thomas claimed that Hill’s actions were an attempt to put an uppity black man in his place.  Ignoring the fact that Hill is also black.    He literally referred to it as a lynching.  This is perhaps one of the most public displays of the conflict of multiple identities.  Many theorists discuss the problem of multiple identities.  That women of color are somehow not real women, and not real [insert racial identity here].  This means Thomas can make claims of lynching against a black woman, because in this moment he is making allegations against a woman.  The imagery this brings to mind, the number of black men who were unfairly, through legal or extra-legal means, punished for perceived slights, advances, etc., against white women, are adequately evoked. 

Black men were lynched and black women were often the subject of sexual subjugation, and in the case of the Thomas confirmation hearings, these issues were hitting the stage in a whole new way.

Recently this issue has resurfaced as a topic of interest as Thomas’ wife called and Left Hill a voicemail asking her to apologize. This was probably a brilliant strategy on her part, as she is getting incredible recognition and she has recently joined the Tea Party movement as a leader. The Tea Party moving, being an radical organization, like a vast majority of radical organizations, seems to view women as inferior to men, so bringing up this issue, asking her to apologize, sends a broad message that the Tea Party movement thinks that women should just accept this behavior if they choose to enter the workplace. What is sad, is that groups with these kind of extremist views get traction, more traction than they otherwise would get, when the economy is down.  We romanticize the past, looking at it from the viewpoint of the most advantaged and seem to think that that experience was universal, and when we do this, too many conservatives and radicals come to the conclusion that what is wrong with the world/U.S. isn’t the incredible inequality, the shrinking of the middle class, poverty, sexism, violence, etc., no the problem with society is feminism and women need to stay home (unless of course your poor or a woman of color, and then you can keep on being engaged in the workforce, because that history doesn’t count).

Here’s to hoping that maybe we can also have a discussion on the persistence of sexual harassment.  To have more discussions on the national stage about what kind of behavior is appropriate at the workplace, and again send a message that when people don’t feel safe at work, it’s not just all in good fun.  It’s only a fun workplace everyone is safe.

Women in the State Judiciaries

There is an article in the July 2010 in the ABA journal discussing women on the judiciary, well specifically state supreme courts.  Some highlights of interest:

• 20 States across the nation have a woman as the Chief Justice:
• Washington
• Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
• Women make-up over 40% of the state high courts in 19 states:
• Washington
• California, Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
• Women compose 26 percent of state judiciaries, compared with 22 percent of federal judiciaries.
• Women now make up 48% of law school graduates and 45 percent of law firm associates.

The increase of women in important positions does not guarantee greater justice – the Phyllis Schafleys of the world should make us all aware that sometimes women are actually the worst enemies of gendered justice.  That being said, not having women on the courts does guarantee inequity.  Even if men and women voted exactly the same way on every single issue, it would still create inequity because of the appearance of bias that exists when the court does not refelct the population it serves (this includes gender, racial, ethnic, etc., but my focus at the moment is on gender). There is a concept about trial and judges and their communications with attorneys or their pasts, and judges are not supposed to engage in behavior that is or could be perceived as prejudicial. 

But the reality is that women don’t vote the way they might be expected to vote, if they were men.  Sandra Day O’Connor is a prime example.  She sort of straddled the line on the abortion issue, but she believed/s in the health of the woman exception and essentially in some access to abortion.  I suspect this had a lot to do with being a woman.  Please don’t mistake this as meaning every women supports safe and legal access to abortion, this would absolutely not be true.  But I do think that women have a much better ability to experience empathy for the impact children have on the lives of women.  Given our rape culture and the reality that women often feel lucky they haven’t been raped or experienced some sexual assault when they haven’t and the unacceptable number of women who have been, the protection of a rape exception seems like it would be a deeply held value for many women.  And while men might also have similar convictions, it’s still a different.

It’s true for all sorts of things too.  Looking at Sandra Day O’Connor again, she was one of the few justices from a Western state (she grew up in Arizona).  Legal scholars argue that this gave her a different perspective and voice when it came to issues of water rights because our relationship to water in the west is different than those on the east coast.  For example, I remember when I went to college, a fellow Pacific North westerner posted a sign “When it’s yellow, let it mellow. When it’s brown flush it down.” This grossed out my classmates.  They’d never heard this expression and thought she was off her rocker.  But being from this area, where are lawns turn brown in the summer because water is scarce and regulated, this was not unusual to me. 

My point is just that experience impacts our understanding of the world.  There are gendered experiences and knowledge.  Thus, when our courts look nothing like us, there is a sense that we will not be seen and understood when we are before the court. 

Although, I will concede that it may make little difference to most people, after all this is the highest appellate court in the state (and for many of the claims it’s the highest court available), so a vast majority of people will never see this court, and I have a sneaking suspicion most people have very little idea of who composes the state supreme court. Since I’m a Washingtonian I will just add that our court has the following members (although elections are on us, so Jim Johnson and Barbara Madsen could change): Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, Associate Chief Justice Charles W. Johnson, Justice Gerry L. Alexander,, Justice Richard B. Sanders, Justice Tom Chambers, Justice Susan Owens, Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, Justice James M. Johnson, and Justice Debra L. Stephens

Things on my mind

1) Obviously the Amelia Kagan hearings. She's not liberal enough (I'm actually not even sure if by any definition other then Glen Beck's definitions if she could really be called a "liberal" - too much into war) to be my first choice, but wow, she's really smart. We could use a little more really smart, and a little less political on the court.
1a) How little Race is discussed in this election. I mean seriously, won't being a white woman influence her on the court just as much as being a Latina would influence Sotomayor?
1b) How much sexuality has to play a role. Regardless of Kagan's sexual orientation, it showcases the fact that if you are female and not married, your sexuality will be questioned. If you are a woman who is in power, your sexuality will be questioned regardless of your own claims.
1c) I wonder how many single people have ever been on the Court. And single in all its variations, single never married, single divorced, single widowed, single because not legally allowed to marry.

2) The woman in Iran who got lashed for being accused of having an affair is apparently getting the death penalty. As a queer woman, I am often confused about how it seems like issues impacting sexuality get more air time than those impacting women. I'm not entirely sure if this is real or my imagination, but I have noticed Vanguard doing a piece on women and they did do one on the Ugandan homosexuality bill. This intrigues me on so many levels, but also because of how much anti-homosexuality often seems to be deeply entwined with controlling women's bodies.

3) The lawsuit in Washington over whether pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill. So many issues with this - but above all else, if you aren't willing to fill a prescription, don't pursue that career. Get your morals out of people's access to health care. Stupid people.
It's a lot harder for women to have access to safer family planning options than men (on so many levels, tying your tubes versus vasectomy, costs of female condom vs male condoms, burden of the pill and other methods failing on females fiscally, despite limited access and the fact we make less than men).
But beyond all that it gets to the heart of what the anti-choice movement is about. It's not a movement about life, it's a movement about controlling women's reproductive options. We need to keep mindful that the women's movement started in large part to just trying to get accurate information out about the possibility of family planning (seriously look up the life of Margaret Sanger who went to jail just for distributing handbills about family planning). There was a span of about three years between the Supreme Court declaring birth control access had to be allowed to married people, then single people, and then abortion.
If pharmacists are allowed not to dispense the morning after pill, then why can't pharmacists who don't believe in sex outside of marriage refuse to provide the birth control pill? To think they are different it's splitting hairs on a very small level.

Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't about GLB"T" people

Don't Ask Don't Tell is the big hubbub right now. I hate that it is, because I am anti-war. I have yet to hear of any mass violence of war that was necessary (WWII wasn't necessary, it is a sign of the complete failure of humanity to step up far sooner, even the Civil War would have likely been unnecessary if the North would have stopped passively benefiting from the existence of slavery).
It is true I don't believe in discrimination in the armed services - but DADT is only one of many places where discrimination exists. If we're serious about ending discrimination, all young women from 18-25 (or whatever the age range is) to register for the draft like their male counter-parts.
But those are tangents. Because my big irritation right now is when people universally claim that DADT ends discrimination against LGBT people in the military. Even more irritated when they spell out the acronym and don't actually think about "Trans." DADT is a an on homosexual behavior. It's not a ban on Transgender identity. It's actually unclear if someone who is trans but is attracted to someone of the opposite sex would be able to be kicked out of the armed services. No granted there are a minefield of questions. What if someone is post-op, but lives in a state that won't allow them to change their gender identity. What sex would their sex be for purposes of the DADT policy? Could two bodied men be getting it on and not violate DADT if legally they're of different genders? What if they're both in the military? Could the one who is a bio boy get kicked out under DADT if he didn't know his partner was legally female?

I honestly don't know whether transfolks are allowed to serve. My first thought was of course, but then, it occurred to me that you have to be diagnosed with a mental illness to be allowed to do surgery/transition legally in some places. Could the DSMIV diagnosis interrupt a person's ability to serve? And what about intersex people? How many intersex people are in the armed service and does being intersex interfer with someone's ability to serve (i.e., can medical professionals or anyone else know about their identity without getting kicked out).

Let's also not forget the wide spectrum of what it means to be trans. Above I used the term post-op as if that has a singular definition. But it doesn't there are many different surgeries someone can have in the process of altering their biological body to match their identified bodied. For a wide range of reasons, people transition may or may not employ a broad spectrum of methods to "transition." The issues the military would have to deal with to create an environment conducive to the existence of Trans folks is far beyond a simple policy change.

My point is that when we too readily lump ourselves into the LGBTQI community without recognizing that what makes us each individual letter widely impacts our personal experiences and the way the laws and discriminatory policies impact us.

Thinking about Trans

The transgender issue is a hard issue to talk about.  It is hard because as I often argue, it is incapable to exist in our society without internalizing racism, sexism, classism, etc.  It seems even more challenging to understand and wrap one’s mind around the idea of multiple genders or the idea that someone’s gender might not match their sex. 

The first time the trans issue really came onto my radar was my junior year in college.  I was at the University of Washington in a Queer Literature class in 1998.  One of my class members was a lesbian and her partner was in the process of transitioning.  She was a lesbian, she loved her partner, but what does it mean to be a lesbian dating a man?  If she keeps dating her partner, but still identifies as a lesbian, isn’t she essentially telling her partner, regardless of what you do to your body, you will always be a woman to me?  If she stays with her partner then, does she have to then redefine her sexuality?  And what does she have to redefine it to? 

This is probably when I began calling myself queer.  I like the idea that my identity is based on me and not always tied to who I’m dating.  I think about the idea that if I fall in love with a man (bio or trans) that I would not lose a community that is a huge part of my life. 

Hearing about my classmate’s experience, I also tried, for the first time, to wrap my mind around the idea of whether I could date a man, because I’m fairly certain that the only way it would become an issue is if a woman I were dating realized that she was really a he (and given that I tend to like women who are a little more on the feminine side, this really isn’t a strong possibility, but I still think it’s an important question to think about).  In all honesty, I don’t know that I know what the answer is, I fear that it is no.  I hate the idea that I could love someone but not be able to be with them because of their gender identity.  But there is so much embodied in gender identity that is important to me.  Gender is more than body parts (although the body parts are incredibly important for the enjoyment of sex).  Gender is about the way we interact with the world.  We have gendered knowledge, gendered experiences, etc. and I have a hard time imagining that anyone raised in a male body that transitions to a female body would be someone that would truly understand those experiences that share those experiences. With as much as I love being female, I also think it would be hard for me to be with someone who hated being female so much that they felt the need to transition. 

But here’s the thing, as much as I am a lesbian, I am also feminist.  I want us to eliminate the gendered difference in the way we treat people.  I don’t want to think of boys as liking trucks and girls liking dolls.  I want us to take out the value that privileges male over female. I want men to be able to wear dresses and easily and comfortably as I wear men’s button downs without it ever having to be a question of whether they were born in the wrong body.

What if we achieve all this, will it end transgender identities?  If sex doesn’t influence your gender expression will there be a need for transitioning genders when your gender doesn’t match your sex? 

I don’t have the answers to this.  A friend of mine has a daughter how was trapped in her male body.  There is a story on NPR about their experience. http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=5-8-2008  If there were no social expectation/stigmas on how boys behave and dress could she have existed in her male body and have been okay?  I don’t know.  I also don’t think the answer is universal.  Maybe there are some people who would not feel the need to transition if we didn’t have such rigid gender stereotypes.  But I also think some people would still want to transition.  The girl in the story seemed to have an incredible need and hated the way her body was beginning to betray her as it started to become more male. 

I was in a queer poetry class when an adult classmate wrote a piece about his transition and he described the way that when the hormones filled out his face and bulked him up he finally looked into the mirror and recognized himself.  He finally began to recognize himself.  That comment, the realization that people who don’t identify with their sex assigned at birth essentially see a stranger in the mirror was particularly powerful.

I cannot imagine what it is like to not feel at home in my body.  Even when I’m a bit unhappy with my weight or my back due to my back problems, my body always feels like my own body.  It is for this reason, that despite my concerns over the polarization of gender that I worry are embodied in trans issues, I am fully supportive of people being able to have personal dignity and feel at home in one’s body.  I hope that the drugs won’t have negative effects down the road, for that is one of my biggest fears about the transitioning genders, especially at young ages. 

Listening to the NPR story above, makes me more intrigued by the idea of transitioning at earlier ages.  If someone knows at a young age that they do not fit with their birth sex, why shouldn’t they be able to transition earlier.  If they transition earlier and live in the world with which they identify, I know that I would see them as somehow more genuinely of that gender.  And let’s just be honest, there, I think that trans men wouldn’t be as welcome as I feel like they are in lesbian spaces if we didn’t somehow see them as not quite male.  I think we may see them as a better version of a male, one ideally less likely to express unconscious sexism. 

I think early transitioning could change our community.  Right now F2Ms fit fairly comfortable in the lesbian community.  If this is because we see them as former women as much as (if not more than) we see them as male.  They also have a better understanding of what it is like to be raised as a female and potentially treat us with a different kind of respect and equality then biological males.  If these same men transitioned at 3 or 10 or 15, they would not be socialized in the same way, and I wonder whether they would be as welcome in our communities.  I’m not saying that this is a good or a bad thing, just something that could happen.  I also think that in the same way people still come out of the closet in their 50s and 60s, you will always have people who transition later in life, because not nearly all families will be as supportive as my friend’s family and not all children will be as strong as their daughter to be able to understand what is wrong and be able to insist it be changed.

Okay those are some thoughts for now.  I believe my thoughts will change as I and we as a society learn more about transitioning genders and have more opportunity to see the long term effects and experiences for people who transition at all the various stages in their lives. 

US Kidnappers – Will Colonialism Never End?

A group of 10 Americans have been arrested in Haiti for “tried to take 33 Haitian children out of the country last week without the government’s consent.”  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/world/americas/05orphans.html?hp That’s a polite way of putting the fact that these Baptist church members were kidnapping children.

Let’s pretend for a moment that they actually bothered to check and make sure these children didn’t have family members who would be devastated to lose their children/relatives.  What ego drives you to think that you can go into another country and take children away?  Imagine if a country that had better universal education, that had universal health care, etc. came to the U.S. and seeing our deplorable foster care system, decided to kidnap children in foster care, convinced they could provide them with a better life than they could ever hope to have in the U.S. (and if you doubt how hard it is to be a foster care kid, look at the graduation rates, the suicide rates, homelessness, rates, etc.).  Add another element.  Assume the people doing the kidnapping do not reflect the “mainstream” America (i.e., are not white and not Christian).  Then imagine our outrage.

“In a sign of the cloudy nature of the case, the prosecutor, Mazar Fortil, decided not to pursue what could have been the most serious charge against the group, that of trafficking.”

I think this is a mistake.  See my recent post about Human Trafficking.  It’s a real problem and I for one don’t trust that the Idaho Baptists had honorable intentions.  I honestly just don’t buy that they were seriously taking children, especially those children with living parents to take them across the border to an orphanage.  But let’s face it, there is already probably going to be a teabagging backlash to the government enforcing its own laws.  Conservatives will rail against any foreign power thinking they have control over U.S. citizens, especially with the already apparent spin that they were trying to do something good. 

And I seriously do not think that any human being, no matter how dumb can honestly say “we didn’t believe it was a crime.” And to have the audacity to not only ask not to be prosecuted but to be allowed to continue their work in Haiti. 

So yes, I will say unequivocally, I have no doubt that these kidnappers intended anything less malevolent than the continued colonization of other and that they quite possibly had ever intent to traffic these children.  Especially given that some of the kids with parents were told that the kids would be taken to the D.R. to get an education (a common lie by human traffickers).  Then add that the they kidnappers had nothing set up to take the children in, they were just absconding with them, it’s a very weak claim to say that it was anything other than malicious.  

Maybe if I hadn’t read so many stories lately about human trafficking I’d be a little less cynical, but I have, and people do absolutely terrible things to each other. And the Human Trafficking community is worried that this is exactly what might happen.

Human Trafficking, When the Slave is a Family Member

Seattle Women has an interesting article about Human Trafficking in its February issue.  One of the things I find interesting about it, is that, at least for the examples they provided, the instances of trafficking were not some big human trafficking ring, but intimate/familial relationships that were exploited. 

There’s the case of the “mail-order bride” who had an email exchange and he even came to Russia to meet her and her family.  But when she and her 10 year old son came to the States it wasn’t long before they were put in the role of servants/slaves where she was also expected to fulfill his sexual demands. 

Then there was the case of Moroccan girl who was brought the states by her uncle and his wife with the promise of an opportunity of school, instead she was put to work in their espresso stand. 

The article says that people trafficked by one individual or a couple are the most common types of clients seen at ReWA ( Refugee Women’s Alliance).  Like all forms of intimate violence, I will forever find this kind of violence the hardest to understand.  Don’t get me wrong, I don’t understand the classic slavery system either, but how do you other your own nieces and nephews?  How do you so other someone you marry that you can treat them in this way?  How can you provide a space for someone in your home and then abuse them to such an extent? 

I also just don’t understand how we can be raised in today’s society that claims to be so anti-slavery and that there are people who think that their behavior is okay.  I have this question not just for when it’s one or two people in a familial situation of exploitation, but also in a larger context. 

Don’t get me wrong even as I say this I recognize how naive it sounds.  I know that when I go to Home Depot there are dozens of men, most visually look like they are probably from Mexico.  I assume that people will hire these men and pay them far below minimum wage for projects.  I volunteered in New Orleans and learned about how the H2B Visa can easily be used to make sure you have a form of indentured servitude/modern day slavery.  That H2B visas are set up in a way that almost encourages abuse.  They are connected to employment and legal status is revoked as soon as the job is gone, which provides an incredible amount of power for employers.  Employer who frequently exploit their power and who don’t pay, or pay far less than promised, or provide sub-standard housing conditions, or all of the above and so often people don’t have any recourse.  I know that employers are starting to recruit from Asian countries because too many people in the U.S. speak Spanish, making it too easy for Spanish-speaking employees to access resources to protect them. 

I know all these things, but knowing these things happen and understanding how any human being could enslave another human being are two very different concepts.

Revisiting Heterosexism

I was thinking about the definition of heterosexism in the context of the State of the Union Address, particularly the policy of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT).  You wouldn’t know it by most of the spokespeople of DADT (i.e., gay soldiers bemoaning how they can’t fight in an unjust war), but women are disproportionately affected by DADT (14% of the Army and 46% of DADT discharges; 20% of the Air Force and 49% of those discharged).  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/washington/23pentagon.html?_r=1

If heterosexism is about keeping women in their place where does the DADT policy fit?  Part of me thinks that women who are in the military are already breaking the rules of their gender by joining, so why should heterosexism a greater role in their harassment?  Then I think of one of my law school classmates who is in the armed services along with her husband, and you wouldn’t know it.  There’s nothing particularly butch about her.  She’s just you’re run of the mill mom with two kids who believes in serving her country by joining the armed services (she’s also a super cool person, proving that while I am insanely anti-military and anti-war, I am not unreasonable, I do understand that good people engage in this behavior).

Obviously there is something anti-woman about the disproportion, which in some respects supports my theory.  It’s the men who get discharged that make me wonder what else is going on. Maybe it’s just me, but I have a hard time imagining a “sissy”/effeminate man wanting to join the armed services.  I admit fully that that could be a total bias.  Just like my law school friend, you could be a stereotypical flaming gay man and have some sort of deep profound belief of the importance of serving in the armed services.  But what about all those guys that are totally gay and butch as hell?

I know that some of the argument is somehow that the existence of out gay men will essentially have some sort of feminizing ripple effect and thus weaken the armed services.  This again falls into my homophobia/heterosexism has its root in sexism (props to people who get the root reference ;) ).

I’m also intrigued by the idea that eliminating DADT will change the culture of the military or even the level of outness (well particularly for men).  Look at professional sports, there have only been one or two out male athletes in professional sports, and I' can’t remember if any of those were out while actively playing sports.  If the pressure to hide in the closet as profound in this arena, I can’t help but imagine that it will be equally intense in the armed forces. 

Always comes back to the hearts and minds.  Until people believe that gay is okay, truly believe, for so many people all the laws in the world will only make minimal (although sometimes quite powerful) differences. 

Sexting

“Sexting” the phenomenon of sending naked pictures via text message.  It’s a stupid, stupid, behavior that teenagers in particular seem to be partaking in.  What is particularly troublesome about the fact that teenagers are participating in this behavior is that when they get caught, they’re getting charged with child porn.  An offense that will force them to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
Now, in general I have a bit of problem with the sex offender registration, but in particular this seems like an absurd response to stupid behavior, unless that behavior is intended to be hurtful (i.e., girl sends guy naked picture, they break-up he mass forwards).  We live in a different world then I think we ever imagined we could live in.  Who knew that one day, cameras would not only exist on phones that you would carry every where, but that these phones would have the ability to forward those pictures? 
Once this happened, we should have been able to foresee that irresponsible behavior would follow.  That our culture with its obsession of sex would create a situation where there might be peer pressure for girls to send naked pictures to guys and there might be peer pressure for guys to show those pictures.  It’s locker room talk with visual aids. 
Granted this is speculation, I’m not sure there’s been any research into who's sending naked pictures, but I suspect it’s primarily girls to guys, guys to guys, but not guys to girls or girls to girls (at least not at the same rates).  In this world of the internet, Facebook, and other methods of connecting and sharing info/pictures etc., it is undeniable that the consequences of these actions may haunt people forever. 
Unless there are some other creative tools to stop sexting, the reality is that kids won’t realize that their actions will have long term enormous consequences.  Shoot, I’m sure they are plenty of adults who will be lured into the idea that they are engaging in private behavior with someone they love/trust.  If there isn’t some sort of change in technology, society is probably going to have to be the thing that changes.  Our sensibilities are going to have to forgive people who send naked for being stupid. 
Don’t get me wrong if sexual pictures are forwarded as a form of harassment, this behavior should be punished, but it should be punished under our civil laws of Title IX and anti-bullying statutes, not child pornography laws.  Those laws should be saved for adults that exploit children for the sexual gratification of other adults.  Child pornography is a dirty, criminal, awful industry that exploits and dehumanizes children.  Sexting is not the same thing and it is inappropriate to treat it as such.

Heterosexism

I was at a presentation on GLBT Youth and suicide today and the topic of heterosexism came up.  The presenter asked for someone to define heterosexism.  My definition is that heterosexism is the assumption that everyone in society is heterosexual, but that it has a sexualized component to it to.  Heterosexism embodies a concept of the sexual availability of women.  It’s about more than just whether your gay or straight, it’s about why women make less, why they are marginalized in the workplace.  Why so many job/career books try to find a way to direct women to walk the line between looking good (re: attractive to men) without looking too slutty. 

The panelist wanted to focus on the presumption of heterosexuality.  And yes, this is undeniably a part of the it, but it’s not just the presumption of heterosexuality, it’s the power and privilege maintained by the system.  If there weren’t power and privilege embodied in the system there would be no reason to be invested in the system. 

Where does the power come from?  This gets back to a thought that I have that a huge part of homophobia is about controlling women’s bodies.  It’s about making sure that we continue to be subservient to men.  There’s this incredible investment into this idea that women are desperate for men, that women should settle (there was an Atlantic article about how women should settle).  Women are a commodity. A resource that should not be diminished by allowing control over their bodies or their sexual choices. 

Ensuring male power and privilege is also a reason for beating up on effeminate boys, who are the victims of male homophobia far more than boys/men who fit into more stereotypical male models. 

State of the Union Address

Thoughts on the Obama’s first state of the Union Address

• Bank Bail Out – He said one thing that united us all was that we hated the bank bail out.  He’s right.  Really would have loved to have seen that money go to people, pay off people’s mortgages, student loans, etc.  Imagine how much money people could put towards the economy if they didn’t have to worry about those debts.
• Tax Cuts – I seriously hate the concept of Tax Cuts and how much “Washington” thinks this is what we want.  I normally do not really see much benefit from any tax cuts and would so much rather have the government keep that money if they would provide something like universal health care.
• Recovery Act/Stimulus Package – After two years of recession the economy is growing again.  I hope that’s right because I need a new job as do several of my friends who’ve been unemployed forever.  And African American's are insanely negatively impacted by the “recession.” 
• New Jobs Bill – He’s calling for one, but what will it be? True engine of job creation will be America’s businesses – focus on small business.  Really wonder how that will happen, especially with the Supreme Court ruling giving so much power to big business.  Not really sure how we’re going to step away from this corporatocracy.
• Clean energy – ugh – this seems like a catch phrase that doesn’t mean anything.
• Slash tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas and give tax breaks to companies who keep jobs in America
• House passed a jobs bill.  Urges Senate to do the same. Wow that gets happy excited standing ovations.
• Full employment – lay a foundation… can’t afford economic expansion – where jobs grew more slowly, income declined, education costs at an all time high, prosperity built on housing bubble and speculation. 
• How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?  (Hmm… sounds like a question all oppressed peoples in our country have been asking for centuries, yet I suspect we won’t really be addressing oppression and poverty.)
• Side note – is there some sort of sign when to stand up.  You can also tell party not only by standing, but by the irritated sarcastic looks the Republicans have.  When will we reach a place where we can respect the members of the opposing parties who are our leaders.  I’m just a guilty, I thought Bush was one of the biggest idiots ever.  I cried when Reagan was re-elected.  But it does seem like when you’re in Congress there is a level of deference you should pay to the President, especially during the State of the Union Address.
• No second place for America – is it so wrong that I dislike this kind of patriotism?  Can we not be a human race that thinks we all should have the ability to live in a world without violence, where basic needs are met, regardless of the country you were born in?
• Guard against recklessness that nearly brought down our economy.  We can’t allow financial institutions to take risks that threaten the whole economy. 
• House passed a bill lobbyists trying to kill it.
• Side note: the Senate needs to get off its ass and make similar progress as the house.  Stop wasting your majority and show that we can be a nation that looks out for its citizens.
• Back to clean energy – ugh – safe clean nuclear power plants in this country.  There is no such thing as safe nuclear energy.  Offshore oil and gas development – sucky.  Not so green solutions.
• Some disagree with the overwhelming evidence on climate change (nice dig).  Providing incentives are the right thing to do for our economy, the nation that leads clean energy will be the nation that leads the global economy and America must be that nation (again, I’m so not patriotic enough – this whole environment thing is a problem that must be addressed on a global level). 
• Double efforts – increase that will support 2 million jobs in America. Launching a national export initiative – help farmers increase their exports and something about national security.  Seek new markets aggressively.  Can’t sit by while others create trade deals.
• Enforce agreements so trading partners play by the rules (like forcing Canada to drill for oil despite the insane negative effectives it will have on their ecological system????)
• Invest in skills and education of our people
• Any chance you’ll forgive my student loans, because wow those are crippling and limit my ability to give back to the community.
• Turning around failing schools… Hmmm… Wonder if maybe youth in poor schools might have more incentive to perform if college could be an option – priced out of everything now.
• Revitalize community colleges
• Make college more affordable – but how?  Colleges are hurting.  Programs are being cut.  Businesses own research.
• Only required to pay 10% of income and forgive if you do 10 years of public service.  I like that.  10% of my income would be great.  But what about private education loans?  Colleges and Universities have to cut their own costs (hmm… seems like arts will be lost and not football programs).
• Homes – Take out loans and reduce payment, more affordable mortgages.  What about actually finding a way to lower the cost of home ownership.  Wasn’t too long ago that a family could afford to pay off a home in five years because the costs were more reasonable than they are now.
• Clear a few things up.  Health Care.
• Didn’t take it on because it’s good politics.  Took on Health Care because of stories he’s heard.  Patients denied coverage, families, even those with Health Care one illness away from financial ruin.  Protect from worst practices.  Choose affordable health care plan.
• Michele Obama attacking childhood obesity and make kids health.  (She seems a little uncomfortable in the spotlight).
• CBO – approach would bring down deficit by $1 trillion over next two decades.
• Complex issue, longer debated, taking blame for not explaining it better.  Process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for me.
• By the time he’s finished speaking more Americans will lose health care.  Will not walk away from these Americans and neither should the people in this chamber.  Republicans still sitting down.
• Doctors, nurses, etc., consider this a vast improvement, but if anyone has a better idea from either party let him know. 
• (There’s Loche, Washington’s former governor.)
• Don’t walk away, let’s find a way to come together and finish it for the American people, let’s get it done. Let’s get it done. 
• Massive Fiscal Hole – a challenge that makes all others more difficult to solve.
• Spending – at the beginning of 2000, America had a gov’t surpluss – by the time he took office, no longer there – not paying for two wars, tax cuts, prescription plan, recession – all this before he walked in the door (McCain making side talk).
• If we had taken office in ordinary times, would have liked to bring down the deficit, and efforts to address crisis have added $1trillion – right thing to do.  Federal government needs to tighten its belt.  Here’s the thing, the government should always be looking to make sure that it isn’t wasting money, but it should never give up it’s responsibility of being the safety net to people. 
• Discretionary funding will be curbed.  Work within a budget to get what we need and sacrifice what we don’t.  Washington politics again.  All one has to do is look at the stimulus package to see that when it comes to trying to get votes people will be able to pork barrel and all the pretty talk in the world isn’t going to change that.
• Cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will continue to skyrocket.  Can’t be a Washington gimmick to solve problem, commission will have to solve problems by a deadline.  But Senate blocked a bill – but he’ll create through executive order because he refuses to pass the problem onto another generation of Americans.
• Senate should restore the pay as you go law.
• Some will argue that we can’t address while so many still hurting – he agrees that’s why it won’t take place till next year.  But how on earth do we know where we’ll be next year.  I really don’t see that many improvements yet, I’m still scared about what will happen any day now that will make me without a job and no way to fill it.  I just got an email from a friend about a friend of hers who was laid off.  We’re not in a better place yet. 
• We face more than a deficit of dollars, face a deficit of trust, deep corrosive doubts about how Washington works, take action on both ends, reduce impact of lobbyists, do work openly, give people to government they deserve.
• White House posts visitors on line, excluded lobbyists from boards or commissions.  Require lobbyists to disclose each contact, curb ability to spend.
• Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that will open flood gates.  Supreme Court focused in on for that comment, they’re not standing.  Urge Congress to pass a bill that corrects problems
• Continue down path that addresses ear mark reforms.  Will that ever be possible?  Publish all earmarks online for a vote.  Really, like that makes a difference.  Like seeing it will make much of a difference.  The thing about earmarks is that they are designed to benefit the state the Congressional Representative comes from.  Murray gets Boeing money, that benefits Washington State.  Posting it is just proof about working for her state, the people who vote her in.
• We can’t wage a perpetual campaign – to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side.  Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can.  The confirmation of well qualified public officials shouldn’t be held hostage to pet projects or a few individual senators. These politics stop either party from helping the American people.  Does anyone hear this?  Are Congressional representatives really care?  Are they there to help the American people?  If they can’t pass health care because so many or in the pockets of the insurance industry are they really representing us? 
• If Republicans are going to insist that there is a super majority, then the responsibility is yours to govern, we were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.  Show let’s show the American people we can do it together.  Wants to begin monthly meetings with Democrats and Republicans.
• No issues has united this country more than our security.  Wow am I so far at the margins, that this seems like bullshit?  It united us in trying to help each other, but not in policy.  Not in figuring out how to recover and respond.  I was not united in the detention centers where the main criteria seemed to be racial profiling.  I was so far from on board for the wars.  I do not believe in these wars.  I do not believe in torture.  I do not think it’s cool to talk about success in terms of killing Al Queda.  I want justice, the justice that comes through fair trials, through reconciliation, through finding ways to improve the lives of all people so that the temptation to resort to violence is eliminated.
• Obama promised to end this war and that’s what he’s doing as president.  Combat troops will be out by August.  Yeah, I’ll believe that when I see it, like we’ll ever really be out.  Like all of our troops will come home.  Like we’re going to end imperialism and not keep bases everywhere, including Iraq and Afghanistan.
• Need resources in war and when they come home.  Neither of which is or has ever been provided.  Make no mistake, our military is also about a class war, send the poor off to die, bring them home and leave them homeless and without resources to address the incredible psychological harm that occurs from the military industrial complex and taking of a human life.
• Reduce stock piles and launches.  Arms control treaties – farthest reaching in nearly two decades.  April’s nuclear summit – securing all vulnerable nuclear materials so they never fall into the hands of terrorists.  I totally hate the obscure idea of terrorists- who defines what a terrorist is anyway.  Just look at Israel and Palestine to see how hard knowing who is a terrorist and who is a legitimate government engaging in legitimate government actions.
•  America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.  Gotta love ideals. Greatest strength is our ideals.  That’s kind of scary given how much ideals vary on political ideology. 
• Civil Rights division – once again prosecuting civil rights violations. 
• Finally strengthened laws for hate crimes (oooh goodies lock more people up).
• Going to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell this year. 
• Crack down on violations of Equal Pay Laws
• Fix broken immigration system. Vaguey vaguerson
• Ideals and values built America (slavery, indentured servitude, a class system that only allowed certain people to vote, exclusion of women into the political sphere – so many great ideals… )
• More that t.v. pundits reduce serious issues into soundbites… no wonder there is so much cynicism out there.  Seriously don’t blame the media, if government would get some shit done, that would totally combat the media’s cynicism.
• Shouldn’t focus on poll numbers, but doing what’s best for the next generation.  If people who made those decisions 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or 200 years ago.  Seriously dude, you’re a history buff, people haven’t looked towards the future and people.  Again slavery, segregation, gender discrimination and violence allowed.  The failure to pass health care reform for more than a decade.  The insane gap between what we will spend to kill versus the amount will spend on education and basic human services.
• Spirit lives on in you, its people. A new year, a new decade, we don’t quit. Seize the moment.

And then the end.  Can’t lie, I can’t bring myself to watch the Republican response. 

Massachusetts Elects a Replublican to Replace Kennedy - Does Gender Play a Role?

Massachusetts elected Scott Brown today over Martha Coakley. Watching Rachel Maddow right now and she's discussing the fact that Massachusetts has not elected women in strong leadership positions. The person she's interviewing is saying that how bad Coakley's campaign was was the problem and it's not a gender issue. I find it so problematic that women in particular, but anyone in general thinks gender doesn't play a huge role. It's also intriguing that she said gender doesn't matter but is criticizing Coakley for not appealing more to women. Such a Catch 22, damned if you make gender an issue, damned if you don't. And the guy elected joked about the sexual availability of his daughters in his acceptance speech. He also is against Health Reform and for waterboarding.
I was out with an intelligent woman last night who also thought that gender didn't really matter. That women (which really meant white women), have lots of privilege and should focus on their privilege. While I hear her point of view and understand that there are many a valid points in trying to create greater bridges between movements and understanding our privilege and how our privilege can help others.
The thing is, gender is insanely important. Sexism and heterosexism greatly impact every facet of our lives and the lives of women globally. We still aren't even 20% of Congress and the numbers are lower for women leaders in business (although women are leading in the creation of small businesses). Women are also lagging behind in participation in hard sciences and trust me, from the experiences of my friends who were math majors, it's not because they're not smart enough or women aren't good at math - it's because there's only so much sexism a person can take before they opt-out and decide to use their intelligence in fields where they can spend the energy on the field and not overcoming / dealing with the hostility and the discrimination.
Anyway, I can go on and will go on, but I should do other things.
I'm also again totally distracted by the tragedy of Haiti. Here is a place where devastation seems to know no gender. But it would be wrong to say it doesn't know race. It flies in the face of history to not understand that this country has been exploited, often by the white north. The debt of the country, corruption in leadership, made it a poor country with terrible physical infrastructure that compounded the devastation. My heart goes out these people.

Title IX Suit in NY

Title IX is my pet law. Title IX is the ban on sex discrimination in education. It is most widely known for the impact it has had on providing girls and women with opportunities to play sports. This is huge for so many important reasons. There are simple reasons like equality and then the reasons related to the benefits it provides. Girls who play sports are more likely to leave abusive relationships, have sex later, less likely to get pregnant, decreases the risk of breast cancer, more likely to succeed in business. But even with all those benefits, that is not the part of Title IX that gets me totally excited.
The part of Title IX that gets me excited is the connection of sex discrimination to sexual harassment, banning gender stereotyping, etc. The spirit of Title IX could mean that teachers who suspect teen dating violence would be mandated to report that in the same way they are mandated to report suspicions of parental abuse. It would mean that when boys create lists of girls to sleep with and games about sleeping with girls, that schools would be expected to interrupt that behavior. That when anyone is bullied in a manner that is based on sex stereotyping or sexual behavior schools would be expected to stop the behavior and make sure everyone has a safe learning atmosphere.
There has been some debate about how same-sex sexual harassment should fall in Title IX and Title VII (the workplace version of Title IX). Some people want to create laws that outline specific protections for harassment based on sexual orientation. I think this is redundant. I think it misses the point that harassment based on gender identity or effeminate boys or butch girls is about sex. It's about our expectations of people to conform with a specific expression of gender. Boys are supposed to behave a certain way, as are girls. Part of the expectation includes expressions of masculinity and femininity. Part of the expectation is also the sexual availability of girls/women and for boys to want to be sexually prolific with girls. These expectations are burdensome for everyone, regardless of orientation. Focusing on sexual orientation or gender identity (meaning trans) ignores the broader implications and reduces the impact of fighting sex discrimination.
Okay more later. I'm distracted by the Rachel Maddow show and the discussion of Haiti and it's late so as much as I love Title IX and the fact the Justice Department is going to pursue a sexual harassment case based on sexual orientation, I'm going to have to comment more later.

Adoption, Abortion & Changing the Debate

One of my biggest frustrations with the Abortion Debate is the way that it has been framed. It has become this overly simplified rhetoric war, mainly by the far right labeling people as murderers and baby killers. I'm not sure why I am so concerned with this rhetoric and wondering what we can do to reposition this debate away from this "Pro-Choice" vs "Pro-Life" dichotomy. But I believe our politicians and leaders have to find a different approach to this rhetoric war so that we can move beyond this division in our society. This idea shouldn't be seen as all that radical - look at the death of Dr. Tiller, something has to change, reason and compassion have to find a way to prevail.

The attempt to rethink the abortion debate took a different twist for me when one of my best friends committed suicide. My friend was adopted. Her adoptive family is and were amazing. She had the love of her parents and wide array of extended family. Despite all this, she was always disturbed by the fact that she was adopted. She hated not knowing what happened to her during the first six months of her life. She hated that she showed signs of attachment disorder when she was first brought home and the thoughts of what had happened to her during this time plagued her. She could also never get over the idea that her biological mother gave her up to be adopted. This radically altered what I think if the idea that women should not have abortions because if they do not want children, or don't want children at this time, or don't want this child because of the circumstances, they can just give the child up for adoption. The reality is that adoption is not painless process. In fact, the scars that result from feeling rejected by your parents, particularly your mother, are the kinds of scars that may never heal.

Recently I picked up a book: The Girls Who Went Away: The hidden history of women who surrendered children for adoption in the decades before Roe v. Wade. The book basically tells the stories of women who got pregnant and were forced into giving their children up for adoption by a variety of factors: society, family, lack of financial and emotional support for raising children. This book made me realize that the idea that adoption might somehow be easier for women emotionally and psychologically is a total myth. I will concede that for some women, abortion is difficult and they feel guilt, the thing is, I don't think it is any more difficult than living with the decision to give your child up for adoption. In fact it seems like it could be a lot easier to live aborting a fetus than to live with allowing a baby to grow from a few random cells into an actual baby, giving birth, and then giving the child away. Unlike a woman who knows what age her child would have been but for an abortion, a woman who gives a child up for adoption, knows its birthday. She knows that somewhere out there this kid is growing older. Allowing her child to be raised by people who are at a place in their lives where s/he/they are ready for a child, does not change knowing that a child born from you is in this world. It will not somehow make it easy to deal with the question from that child, should you ever meet, why didn't you love me enough to keep me? Which may not be the overt question asked, but it is the question behind the question: "Why did you give me up for adoption?" No matter what the reason and no matter how much better the child's live may have been in their adoptive home, for a birth mother, the pain of being asked that question has to be at least as harmful as the worst stories of women who have regretted their abortion (of which there are a some, but far more do not). My point is not to say adoption or abortion is bad. Or that one is better than the other. Just that so often in this debate, giving a child up for adoption is provided as an option that contains none of the emotional pain that may be involved for some people in an abortion. That is simply not true.

The other alternative, keeping a child, is also often thwarted most by those who claim to be "Pro-Life." That's the idea of providing government support for women who are raising children. From fair start breakfast and free-lunch programs, to food stamps, to other welfare programs, pro-lifers tend to be the people who most resist these "government handouts." The term welfare mother conjures up all sorts of negativity. Including sometimes radical responses, like advocating forced sterilization of women on welfare.

Of course, the best alternative, increasing awareness of and access to contraception and other safer sex tools, is also vehemently resisted. When you put all these things together, what is left is an understanding that much of this rhetoric seems to be much more about controlling the lives of women than caring about children.

Many of the women in the book I'm reading had no knowledge of how to use safer sex methods that could greatly reduce the likelihood of pregnancy, and if they had, it wan't legal either - remember, married women where only allowed access to contraception in 1965 with the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut ruling identifying the right to contraception as being part of the private sphere of life the government couldn't infringe upon. It wasn't until 1972 in Eisenstadt v. Baird that this right was extended to unmarried women. Then a year later abortion was found to be a constitutional right. This is a rapid sea change in the sexual freedom of heterosexual couples, and particularly women.

This anti-sex education stance seems all bound up in this idea that if you teach it kids will have sex sooner (or they'll have sex outside marriage). In all honesty, I think having sex before you're at least 18 is probably not the healthiest decision. I think the endorphins and artificial intimacy that sex creates complicates relationships and that it is better to wait until you're older so that things don't confused until after you have a better sense of self. But believing it is psychologically better for people to wait, doesn't mean (1) people will wait, (2) people won't eventually be engaging in sexual behavior and school is the best place to try to teach best practices, and (3) that my opinions should matter in someone else's decision about what to do with their bodies.

Who knows, maybe this means every time anti-abortion questions come up in political debates, that it is the responsibility of all of us who believe in women's full equality and in every person's ability what to do with their bodies, especially in the privacy of their own bedroom, to make sure that we always tie abortion to sex-education. That we constantly point out that the most effective deterrent to abortion is not laws - laws have not and will not ever stop women from having abortions. What will have the greatest influence is if everyone is trained that unless you're trying to have children, you should always have sex with a condom. Maybe you can use other birth control options if you're in a monogamous heterosexual relationship (like the pill or a diaphragm) and you've both been tested for STIs. I'm not saying that condoms are a 100% guarantee against pregnancy, but used correctly, they are probably the closest thing there is. And their lack of a 100% guarantee is no reason to allow ignorance to prevail and not advocate their use, because not using a condom has a much lower rate of walking away without an STI or a pregnancy.