Did you really just say that?

I have had a great deal running around in my little head as of late but I am just now taking the time to put it down here.

Anywho…Here goes…

Why on Earth must people be more concerned with specific details of an individual’s genitals than they are about the consequences of actions? I am sure you probably, at the very least, just raised your eyebrows and uttered a mental “I’m sorry…What!?”

Seriously. This gets VERY old. When people hear of intersex variations, they want details. What makes a person intersex? Exactly what do you mean by atypical? Why don’t they just fix it? Aren’t there counselors for that? I’m going to address this as though I am actually talking to YOU, so please do not take offense if you are a person knowledgeable enough not to say stupid shit. OK, first I’m going to actually answer the questions, then I’m going to tell you what’s wrong with it, and lastly offer some better alternative responses.

1. “What makes a person intersex?”

Definition-Intersex is when a person’s genital development is atypical. In other words, their genetic makeup, their primary sex characteristics, or their secondary sex characteristics don’t line up, or are outside of two standard deviations from the average (note that I did not say “norm”).

What’s wrong-If someone is sitting there telling you that their child’s foot (which you can’t see) is different, but it is not a medical problem, do people say…”What makes is a foot different?”

Better option-Mind your own damned business and focus on the issue at hand.

2. “What exactly do you mean by atypical?”

Definition-Not typical.

What’s wrong-You are asking for specific details that are irrelevant and none of your business.

Better option-Mind your own damned business and focus on the issue at hand.

3. “Why don’t they just fix it?”

Answer-There are actually no firm answers for this one, but I’ll give it a try. Well, surgery implies that there is in fact something wrong, when there really is no medical issue present (in most cases).

What’s wrong- How dare ANYBODY have the nerve to suggest to a parent that they allow surgery on a child when said person had not heard of the variations until 5 minutes earlier? Secondly, most ‘corrective’ surgeries end up causing more harm and need for future surgeries. Third, would you give an infant rhinoplasty because you think their nose is too big or too small? I think not.

Better option-Mind your own damned business and focus on the issue at hand.

4. “Aren’t there counselors for that?”

Answer-No. Not really. While there may be some services provided for those who have received (or been victims of) surgical intervention, there is little to nothing for those who have not been butchered.

What’s wrong-Um…You just implied that intersex equates to mentally ill or in some other way disturbed. HELLO!? Do they have counselors for really small feet?

Better option-If you honestly feel that there may be a problem, offer your help to assist in finding a counselor who may be sensitive to the issue. Do not question the sanity of the endocrinologist (as a psychoendocrinologist is not a crazy endocrinologist), do not suggest that someone ask their PCP (because SURELY that hadn’t occurred to them yet), and please, please, PLEASE do not explain that your complete and utter lack of knowledge will somehow be a good use of your unlicensed, unqualified, and uninformed skills.

So, in short, consider yourself (although sarcastically) informed either on an issue of which you were previously unaware, or on the crap that comes out of people’s mouths.

Vaginaphobia

Due to circumstances beyond my control, it’s been quite awhile since the last post. Still dealing with said circumstances, but I just have too much wandering about inside my little head.
V-Day having just passed, I feel the need to comment. For those non-feminists in my reading public, V-Day as mentioned here refers no to WWII, but rather to the day(s) devoted to bringing awareness of issues relating to violence (sexual and physical) against women worldwide. As part of the V-Day movement, The Vagina Monologues (VMs) is a collection of theatrical monologues performed to both educate and to raise funds for local violence shelters. So, having provided a short background, I will get on with my random thoughts…

This year there was a great deal of backlash about the VMs. As promotion, our group of young (and not quite so young) women went out and “chalked” our university campus, writing various bits of vagina information, including the dates of the show, some statistics and “Until the violence stops,” among others. One of those with which we were the most impressed was the section on the library steps, ”Vagina words: What do YOU call it?” Here there was a wonderful list written in various colors, many of which offered by passersby who were entertained by the fervor with which our chalk was flying. Some even asked to draw chalk vaginas on the sidewalk and we gratefully granted the chalk for the artistry.

The next day, as the young (and not so young) women involved in the chalking wandered campus, they listened with pride as people commented on the drawings, dates, and yes…the vagina euphemisms. It wasn’t until later in the day that things went awry. Our vaginas were disappearing. Not the drawings, not the FABULOUS euphemisms (which admittedly were the most likely to offend, so we thought), but the actual word: VAGINA.

I received a slightly intriguing email from a professor informing me of the disappearing vaginas. Said that appeared to be the only thing missing. Sure enough, on further inspection, the vaginas were the only thing missing. Someone or someones were removing “vagina” from every chalk tag within a 50 foot radius of one particular building of campus (the other side of campus was left untouched). Reluctant facilities services workers were dragging wet mops across the letters, removing them as though they were some form of profanity. A professor (who shall remain nameless here) was seen removing the word from a large tag stating “The Vagina Monologues 2012, Until the violence stops!” Yes, it was not the euphemisms that were found offensive (beef curtain was a personal favorite, as was the snack that smiles back), but the actual word “vagina”.

That same night, the young women (and not so young and a couple of male assistants) showed up in force with a great deal more chalk than before, and covered the section of campus that had been carefully censored. Also, there was hairspray involved for the purposes of sealing against future mopping. The next day, the same facilities service workers, as reluctant as before, began the work of removing the freshly restored vaginas. At this point, the head librarian stepped out and informed them that they were not to touch any of the work within her area, as that was her domain and it was done with her permission (which is only about half true, but that’s not the point).

It was wonderful to know that we had support. It was amazing to see people standing together for a cause so important. It was disappointing to see that people were so disturbed by such a simple word.

Had the word been “arm” or “leg” or “heart”, I am fairly confident that it would have remained untouched. I am saddened that the words “sideways clam” and “fish sandwich” remained, while “vagina” was removed. Why?

Why is vagina thought to be such a dirty word? Why was something as simple as a body part offensive, while negative euphemisms were left behind? Why, in an arena of free thought and advanced learning, is VAGINA thought so disgusting that it must be censored?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do understand now, more than ever, why it is of the utmost importance that Eve Ensler’s Vagina Monologues be presented time and time again. We must, MUST begin to realize that vagina is not a dirty word, that it is a body part like any other while being a part like no other. To quote Ensler:

“THE HEART IS CAPABLE OF SACRIFICE.
SO IS THE VAGINA.
THE HEART IS ABLE TO FORGIVE AND REPAIR.
IT CAN CHANGE ITS SHAPE TO LET US IN.
IT CAN EXPAND TO LET US OUT.
SO CAN THE VAGINA.
IT CAN ACHE FOR US AND STRETCH FOR US,
AND DIE FOR US.
AND BLEED AND BLEED US INTO THIS DIFFICULT…
WONDROUS WORLD.”

Redefining Marriage

Tomorrow begins “National Marriage Week” in the US (and possibly world wide, admittedly I’m not clear on this point). As such, Focus on the Family and other groups are pushing their definition of marriage on millions of Americans who’s marriage rights continue to be denied.

The most common argument I hear against equal marriage rights continues to be “you can’t redefine marriage. Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. You can call it something else, but your can’t redefine it.” OK, I finally figured out why this argument bothers my so much, aside from the blatant falsehood that marriage began as a religious institution and not as a means to transfer wealth…They claim that marriage is being broken by attempts at redefinition, and yet redefine is exactly what they have done.

Biblical doctrine repeatedly states that women are given to men, that parents match their children (or God does so directly with many conditions attached). So, when exactly did it go from a means of parents assigning the best match for their children to a marriage of love and family? When exactly did the redefinition to an institution of love and support occur?

Hello Kettle, this is the pot and I am calling you black. Please practice what you preach, religious right.

Assailed by the Christian Right (or should I say ‘rite’?)

I’m not sure exactly when the attack on women’s reproductive rights took such a dramatic turn. I think, perhaps it was with the sudden rise in the popularity of the Tea Party and the realization that the Church was beginning to lose some of its political hold. Well, they managed to nip that in the bud and now they push on to reverse the freedoms women have achieved to decide what can and can’t go on inside their own bodies. Alas, those in high religious and monetary places feel the need to tell women that they are not able to choose parenthood, whether that be through abortion, the morning after pill, or even affordable birth control of any sort provided b Planned Parenthood. Ah, but there are condoms! Well, men control that, now don’t they. I prefer to take responsibility for myself and not expect someone else to do it for me. That all being said, I am offering a much shared breakdown of the services provided by Planned Parenthood. Educate, learn, and fight for those who need it.

Into the Abyss…

I have actually managed not to post anything on the Occupy Movement. Until now.

I agree with some of it, I disagree with a lot of it. The reality is, those pushing for a full socialism, claiming that they will occupy until they get one, are just delusional. The merits or problems of an absolute socialism aside, it just won’t work here. Period. There will always be those who feel like they are owed something for nothing. There will always be those who feel they have some sort of inherent worth above others. It just won’t work. Period.

What do I agree with? Pay your workers more, you freaking assholes. Waltons. Yeah, you. Pay your workers a living wage. Offer them decent benefits, pull the mass of people employed by YOU out of the bracket of the working poor. You take over small town America and then drag it through the dirt. You take people’s businesses and then offer them a minimum wage job, saying that you are providing a service, building community. Bullshit. Your are thieves and liars. Have fun in your ivory tower.

Now, what brought on this rant? The fine and not so fine folks of The Conservative Tree House. Some of them have been interesting and informative, others have been hateful for no known reason, except that I struck a cord with respectful but socially liberal dialogue. Shame on me.

Yeah, I’m a bit bitter about some of them today. That I would be labeled as having an agenda for being polite, pisses me off. Newsflash: I’m generally speaking a polite person and have to be pushed pretty far to retaliate. Secondly, that anyone would stand up and feel sorry for Gaddafi strikes me as nothing short of hatred toward millions of Libyans. Sure, he killed, maimed, and stole, but he was a nice guy. Whatever.

And the coup de grace…They seem to want their religion in their government. I get this from a number of posts (read through and come to your own conclusion). But don’t let Islam into anyone’s government. That’s not right. You can’t have an Islamic state. You can have a Christian one, but NOOOOOOOO…No, you can’t have an Islamic state. Not acceptable.

Well, that lovely rant aside, I close today with a stock AP photo and a quote from one of the most marvelous Occupiers of the Tree…

“Revolts aren’t calm.
They happen when diplomacy and discussion have failed.
It is a pressure cooker of violence and anger. It is a cataclysmic upheaval of decades of frustration and repression. It is animalistic and degrading. There is no more human compassion in anything of this sort. It is horrifically cruel. When any society has been pushed to it’s bearable limits, these are the repercussions.

There is no way to contain the explosive backlash. You have to let it burn out.

This is the burn.”

Response to Richard Dawkins

While I found Dawkins’ presentation interesting, it was not without contradiction and was not the best of book presentations I have witnessed (that being Robert Wright, see link below). Quite frankly, I was more impressed with Mary Higgins Clark.

Admittedly, I disagree with Dawkins on a great many of his scientific views and his failure to acknowledge the diversity within the scientific community amazes me. His view of evolution as presented in “The Magic of Reality” is, at best, misleading. Please do not take this as a view against evolution, as that is not at all the case. Whereas Dawkins seems to be under the impression (and not to say that he is wrong, just that I disagree) that evolution is a slow, gradual process that happens over a great deal of time, I subscribe to the view of punctuated evolution or punctuated equilibrium. This is the idea that there are major ecological events throughout history that force change. These events cause a sudden favor to the attributes of any species that support survival of that species in that specific ecosystem. Big jumps, as it were, in the termination and advancement of certain species or variations within a species (Elena, Cooper, & Lenski, 1996) ((Gersick, 1991) (“Evolutionary Models for Genetic Variation,” n.d.).

Secondly, through a question and answer session Dr. Dawkins indicated that he held doubt that there is a euphoric experience just prior to death. I had no idea this was up for debate. Humans certainly experience this and evidence indicates that lower level primates and lower order mammals experience this same phenomenon. The currently supported theory (scientifically speaking) is an increase in GABA activity at death.

Not the last thing I disagree with, but the last I will write about here, is Dawkins’ stance on alien life and space travel. He mentions that there is no such thing as a miracle, that people in times gone by would be astonished at modern commonalities and that those would be interpreted as miracles to those who did not understand them. In that same context, should we see something we do not understand nor can we conceptualize at this point in time, it is interpreted as a miracle. All that being said he then stated that, despite his belief in alien life, any life in the universe is so far apart that the connection of one life form to the next through space was not possible. Then he stated that science fiction is nice, but that it is just that. Fiction. HELLO!? How much of what was once science fiction is now science fact? How likely was it just 400 years ago that, if someone sailed too far, they could go right off the side of the planet? How likely was it, 500, 1000, 1500 years ago that we would ever make it to the north pole, the moon, or to Mars? These are things that can happen given time, innovation, and someone who won’t take ‘no’ for an answer.

Robert Wright:

http://www.ishk.net/moral_animal.pdf

Elena, S. F., Cooper, V. S., & Lenski, R. E. (1996). Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Science (New York, N.Y.), 272(5269), 1802-1804.

Evolutionary Models for Genetic Variation. (n.d.).(R)Evolution (pp. 81-108). New York: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/0-387-26159-1_7

Gersick, C. J. G. (1991). Revolutionary Change Theories: A Multilevel Exploration of the Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10-36. doi:10.2307/258605

Response to Sean Faircloth “Attack of the Theocrats”

This one will be short, sweet, and to the point. Mr. Faircloth, while I may agree with a great deal of your political agenda, using the same fear tactics you accuse others of committing is unreasonable, illogical, and distasteful. Additionally, to say that faith healing has no place is just flat out wrong. The placebo effect is strong and often works as well as (or better than) modern medical science (Moseley, Wray, Kuykendall, Willis, & Landon, 1996). Last but certainly not least, my personal religious views and associations aside, you have offered an outright degrading view of Christianity as a whole without differentiation between people who choose to believe in something greater than themselves (as you also do, but with science not faith) and people who are extremist religious zealots.

Link to the above mentioned article:

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/24/1/28.short

Spawned by FFC

In response to http://hellogiggles.com/im-not-a-feminist-but

I am a feminist. I love men. I love women. I love myself. Why are ANY of these statements mutually exclusive?

Secondly, on what planet (and perhaps this is the masculinity theorist in me) do all men enjoy the security of walking alone at night? Or freedom from sexual harassment? Or the freedom from the ‘unique burden’ of keeping their bodies looking a certain way? And while the author of this piece may be considered ‘too emotional’ as a woman, she herself states that a man must defend his outward show of emotion.

She will never know what it means to be policed by every other child on the playground (both male and female) as to whether or not she is accurately portraying her feminine role appropriately. She will not know what it is like to be silenced by her peers for the sexual harassment she receives. She will not understand, despite the difficulties women as rape victims face, the consequences a man faces when raped. Google “sexy woman” and then “sexy man”. Are the images of both not stereotypical and harmful? She must be thin and busty, but he must be buff and strong (and rich, too I might add).

Something that I think she completely misses the mark on here (and maybe that is only because that is not the point of the piece) is that it is also OK to be MASCULINE women. Why must I, as a feminist proclaim my femininity in high heels and a dress? Why CAN’T I wear my jeans and t-shirts and combat boots, and that be OK too? So yeah, I’m a granola eatin’, boot wearin’, make-up burnin’, Feminist. Deal with it.
I understand that this all relates to the degradation of women and the horrors associated with femininity as a whole (that last part was sarcasm), but the source does not justify the action. Yes, we as feminists need to stand up and support Feminism as a study, as a social science, and as movement, but we CAN NOT do that without discourse. Without discourse, we become a cult of crazy people wandering around the compound agreeing with each other, never stepping out among the non believers.

Expectations and Joint Ventures

The last week has been interesting. What I have learned from it, however is that there is a level of expectation as to how people behave (both positively and negatively). There was an expectation on the part of one Fletcher Armstrong that we “are in a panic because [we] know that [their] pictures defeat [our] most effective strategy”, that being confusing people. While I can be good at that, it is rarely if ever intentional!

In the same respect, there was an expectation on my part that Mr. Armstrong would be unreasonable and…well…pushy and obnoxious. While some with his group are undoubtedly so (one of which I have become quite familiar with in the process of the Fairness Campaign), he was actually quite respectful and polite. Not in the way that someone is “polite” when being condescending, but rather in the way when reasonable discussion is taking place. I feel that, between the two of us, we managed to further educate one of his volunteers in several areas (not the least being a basic understanding of sarcasm, random references to cats and washtubs not withstanding).

We calmly discussed the root of the problem, from both sides. Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Well duh, you say? But even this is problematic. People assume that they are educated and doing things they way they should, but then say things like “my boyfriend wore two condoms and they both broke”. Hello!? That doesn’t work! That actually INCREASES the chances of breakage. So here we have a perfect example of someone who STILL thinks they are well informed.

Further, we discussed the problem of selfishness in our culture. “People are doing this out of selfishness” (Fletcher) “But they are having sex out of selfishness first” (me) “True, but we must address abstinance education then” (Fletcher) “Also true, but people are going to have sex, that’s a reality. We need safe sex.” (me) “Sex isn’t safe.” (Fletcher) “True. Safer, then.” (me) “But Planned Parenthood promotes sex with multiple partners who have multiple partners (insert analogy about a chain here I am eliminating to save time).” (Fletcher) “So then, it is the method in which education is done that you take issue with?” (me) “Yes” (Fletcher) “(Insert analogy about babies, bathwater, and empty washtubes to save time) Does that not make sense?” (me) “Yes, but…” (Fletcher) And so the conversation went. Both of us making valid points that the other disagreed with using equally valid points.

And my point here?

That as many points as we made that the other disagreed with, our goal is ultimately the same. We both want people to be less selfish, and as such make better choices. If we make better choices in the beginning, the end is a whole lot better for everyone involved.

fairness for all?

I have a great many thoughts (and rants) running around inside my tiny little brain at the moment, but I will try (TRY) to focus on what I came here to write about without rambling too much.

Last night was the first of this round of public forums on the Fairness Ordinance. I was concerned that it would get a bit ugly and, despite my desire to bring some who are a bit younger, because of that potential for nastiness, I did not. I must say, I’m rather glad I didn’t. That people can be so heartless and selfish based on their own bigotry, but hide behind their faith, really busts my buttons.

Reasons offered by said bigots for not passing an ordinance:
1) It is unfair to offer “special” protections for other people.

Yes, it is. However this is not the case here. Not “special” protections, but equal ones. These folks have no problem with the protections they enjoy as women, “people of faith”, people of color, disabled, etc. However, offering those same protections to others is “unconstitutional”. I am quite honestly still unsure how that works, but that was the argument.

2) Anti-discrimination legislation is “thought policing”.

If someone wants to spout hateful speech, that is protected by the US Constitution. Uh…No it isn’t. One person’s rights end where another’s begin. One can’t spout evil, hateful things and think that it is protected. How about I stand in the street in front of someone’s home and scream vicious, hurtful things about the individuals in that home. Can they call the police? You betcha. One’s legal protections of speech DO NOT extend into their work space when attacking other individuals. They DO NOT extend to the property or homes of others that can force them from that home. They DO NOT extend to public accommodations that prevent the capabilities and services of others.

3) This is the one that ticked me off the most…The HRC (Human Rights Commission) is failing in its mission of equality for failing to represent persons of faith among its discussions.

Really? REALLY? Because what exactly does that make me? What does it make everyone else in that room that subscribes to any faith be it Christian, Jewish, Agnostic, or otherwise not specified? Do we not count as people of faith simply because the large group from Fort God disagrees? Because a “pastor” from a church chose not to bother showing up at the group discussion among the other clergy in the area, he states that his beliefs are being excluded? Uh…No. That being said, at least HE was honest and didn’t hide behind bad logic and incoherent ramblings about the Constitution.

And in relation to that same point…Why!? Why should faith be considered? Why should anyone’s faith be considered when this is an issue of civil rights? This is not a question about placing a brothel downtown. This is about EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS. This is about crazy things like job protection, housing protection, and public services. This IS NOT about anyone’s opinions about sexual or gender identity.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” No one is suggesting that anyone not practice their beliefs, only that they recognize the beliefs of others.