But, being me, I’m mostly going to talk about reproductive health care in particular. One of the huge issues on the table is whether this new health care plan would cover abortion services. Some don’t even want it to cover family planning services. Obviously, the pro-choice stance (and I stand behind it, 100%) is that all reproductive health care should be available, and women should be able to choose to have a pelvic exam or STD testing or an abortion if they deem it necessary. It’s a women’s right to her own body, and the government should be protecting the privacy of her decisions. If the reform will cover some medical care, women’s reproductive care should in no way be excluded.

What I really wanted to talk about is how stupidly both sides are going about their campaigns. Both are fixating on youtube and national television to advertise nearly identical ads for and against the health care reform. I’m an advocate of the “mute” button, and I can’t tell the two ads apart without the sound on. Both involve an older husband & wife pair milling around their kitchen, sitting at the table for breakfast, looking nervous and upset. They talk about why health care reform is necessary or the end of civilization as they know it (respectively) and then they agree with each other and assure each other that the public won’t let the opportunity for reform to pass or be defeated (respectively).

First of all – they just generally aren’t good ads. Anyone who’s so shallow-minded as to be convinced by one would be as easily convinced by the other. I would suggest to the agencies running the ads that they attempt to always have their ad shown last, so the impressionable viewers are left believing the last thing they hear.

Secondly, I’d like to talk a bit about the anti-health care reform youtube clip specifically (which you can see here.) This ad is being run by the Family Research Council, which describes itself on its website as a defender of “Faith, Family, and Freedom,” and absolutely they defend them in that order. The FRC’s defends Faith by promoting government funding for religious organizations, decriminalization of hate crimes, and the more rational and laudable promotion of “religious liberty for people of all faiths and no faith.” Family is defended by the rigid definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman and, of course, by criminalizing abortion. Freedom is defended by…hm…well, by the freedom to express these indescribably conservative beliefs. They’ll defend their freedom – just not ours.

Anyway, they obviously have an enormous bias. Who doesn’t, nowadays? But let’s look at their ad more closely: as has been pointed out on The Rachel Maddow Show, the ad indicates that health care reform will take funding directly away from old people needing crucial surgery to provide abortions. We, the reform advocates, are trying to kill old people and prevent new life. While the only 100% effective way to prevent health problems is to die, health care reform isn’t working towards death for anyone. It’s working towards the improved quality of life, and that includes the elderly and the women who come to the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. In no situation would the government take money from that sad old man and wantonly hand it off to every woman with an unwanted pregnancy. The idea is that both people – both in equally dire situations – would be able to access care. The info on the youtube clip gives this gem:

“Congress will soon vote on President Obamas healthcare bill a bill limiting our choices to preserve life and expanding the choice to end one.”

The bill should expand choices to preserve life in every extent – including the lives of the unlucky pregnant women who just can’t have a baby right now (not to mention products of rape, incest, and fetuses with major anomalies. That’s a whole ‘nother ball game.)

Now, onto the pro-health care video. The video’s message “A little more cooperation, a little less politics, and we can get the job done,” is fine, if sounding (for good reason) like a cliche tagline. The problem was their tactic in choosing the actors. Most importantly, the actors aren’t very good actors. They’re clearly scripted and simply regurgitating the lines they were given that morning in hair & makeup. Only slightly less importantly, the actors are flip-floppers, and therefore their nonconvincing performance depends on which rendition you happen to be watching. In 1993, “Harry and Louise” appeared in this ad, that was just a little less desperate and absurd than the FRC’s current ad. They were clearly against health care reform. Then, in 2008, “Harry and Louise” appeared again in this ad, which advocated for health care reform through a soulless story of a friend being diagnosed with cancer (the husband’s response was not “that’s terrible!” or “oh, my god.” It was “but he’s covered?” as if insurance is the automatic cure for cancer.) Suddenly, the government could save them. Most recently, they returned for a third time in this ad, but I don’t even care anymore. These people can’t make up their minds. Why should I listen to them to help me decide?

Do your research, protect your rights. Don’t let a 30-second television spot make up your mind one way or another. Harry and Louise aren’t real, and neither are the defenses of Faith, Family, and Freedom which the FRC is claiming to throw up. Health care reform is necessary – learn it from the people around you, the stories you hear from your friends and family and relatives – and spread the word of mouth, which is much more important than the word of money in media.

Have a thoroughly satisfying day.

Dr. Tiller was an abortionist in Wichita, Kansas. He provided late-term abortions to women who made that most difficult decision to terminate during their second trimester. These women did not make the choice lightly – many carried fetuses with severe congenital defects, and it saved the woman and what would be the child from much pain and suffering. Women came from all over the country for the procedure.  These women put their lives in Dr. Tiller’s hands and he did what only two other clinics were willing or able to do. Whether you agree with the procedure or not, these women required the service, and he was one of the very few who would safely do what they needed done.

Dr. Tiller’s clinic was out of the ordinary. They provided funerary services – baptisms, in- and out-of-state transportation of remains, last rites. They did all the things that the Christians believe are necessary to send the soul to heaven. After using his career to both help women and honor the religion of his patients, he was murdered in a church. There is no excuse for cold-blooded killing, but a cold-blooded killing in a sacred place like a church is senseless, unbelievable, vile. I’m not Christian, but I can recognize that.

The women who will need and choose to have late-term abortions now fewer safe paths to their solutions. Killing Dr. Tiller is not just a murder of one man, but a murder of every woman who has an unsafe abortion at her own hands. The murderer of Dr. Tiller will have the blood and tears of women on his or her hands. Violence cannot resolve the abortion issue.

Some other brave doctors will step forward to provide the services that Dr. Tiller was providing for so many years. Two other clinics in the US provide these services. He was a martyr for the pro-choice cause and a hero for the pro-choice movement. Support Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, or your local family planning clinics by donating or volunteering for them to show your support for all the good work that they are brave enough to do. If you cannot donate time or money, simply write a short letter or postcard with your thanks.

This is a time when pro-choice citizens must stand up for what we believe more than ever, and not be frightened from this senseless, brutal, criminal, inhuman act of violence. Take the time to remember the fallen – those who have died fighting in this war for women’s rights to their own bodies. We, the pro-choice community, are heartbroken that Dr. George Tiller is gone.

It is a big win for pro-choicers. The price of birth control pills on college campuses and in clinics had skyrocketed due to a previous law, which lumped oral contraception in with narcotics and other serious prescription meds which were not to be sold in bulk anymore. That means they had to be bought individually; prices soared. The price raise was particularly heinous because it largely affected the economically challenged college students and women without private health insurance to cover their medications. It forced those who could not afford to pay more to either scrounge up 9x as much money per pack to pay for the pills, or go without and take the risks. It unfairly robbed them of their choices.

Now, birth control pills will be able to be bought in bulk again, and prices can come down. Women will be able to afford their options again, and choose to avoid pregnancy as they did before, but without breaking the bank or going out of their way to get it elsewhere.

How did this happen? Was it luck?

No.

This wonderful change – or rather, this totally necessary correction to a ridiculous political move against women and their choices – came about because of the voice of the feminists, the pro-choicers, the Americans who believe in reproductive rights. We had our say in the election, and put more pro-choicers in Congress and the Senate. Then we elected President Obama, a declared feminist. Then we petitioned these people we had chosen to represent us in order to make ourselves heard. We worked hard. We spoke loudly. We signed our names over and over to postcards and letters and emails and petitions and lists and showed up at rallies and made phone calls to tell them what we need: our rights.

We activists do this so often that we forget why. We forget that it isn’t just a formality, just what we ought to do to call ourselves feminists and activists. We’re doing this to actually change the country. We want our country to protect us, as individuals, and our rights as women, as daughters, as mothers, as students, as children, as wives, as human beings. Your country will protect you if you make them learn who you are and what you need.

They will listen. Get out there. Make a difference. Sign your name.

It’s a common remark, especially amongst men. How misogynistic! How unfair! How demeaning! How…statistically based?

The word crazy is a misnomer, here. I’m using it in the colloquial sense, and that’s probably wrong for an article in which I am going to hurl statistics and clinical information for the next bit. By “crazy”, I refer to the state of having a mental illness.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there is a huge gender gap among mental illnesses worldwide. The basic gist is that women are much more likely to be diagnosed with mood disorders and men are much more likely to be diagnosed with substance abuse disorders. This results not necessarily from a “fact” that men tend towards alcoholism and women towards depression, but because of biases in the primary care providers, and social stigma. It’s more okay for a woman to say she’s often sad than it is for a man to say that. It’s more okay for a man to admit that he drinks, perhaps too often, than it is for a woman.

The most troubling part to me is the following quote:

Up to 20% of those attending primary health care in developing countries suffer from anxiety and/or depressive disorders. In most centres, these patients are not recognized and therefore not treated. Communication between health workers and women patients is extremely authoritarian in many countries, making a woman’s disclosure of psychological and emotional distress difficult, and often stigmatized.

One in five people seeking help have a mood or anxiety disorder – but most do not receive help, because the providers don’t acknowledge and treat them. If the woman outright says, “I have depression – here are my symptoms,” the provider might cause them to feel broken, inferior, unworthy. Stigmatized.

I don’t mean to go off on the providers. It’s society’s fault that the providers feel this way. Society has long stigmatized sufferers of mental illness. People with mental illnesses  used to be locked up and gawked at for a tidy profit to those running the prisons. They’re often considered “weak” or “inferior” because people believe that if they were just “stronger” or “had better coping skills” they would not be mentally ill.

This stigma exists in strength for mood and anxiety disorders – “cheer up!” and “chill out!” are society’s chosen treatments for these problems (besides immediate medication, a different topic entirely.) Those who cannot simply adhere to these oh-so-helpful regimens are stigmatized. As women are more likely to be diagnosed with these kinds of disorders, the stigma hits the female population hard.

According to the Mayo Clinic, this stigma can lead to more problems. First and foremost is that it keeps those with mental illnesses from being diagnosed and receiving treatment. It can lead to other comorbid (simultaneous) disorders. It can cause problems in living conditions and relationships with family and friends, especially if they too buy into the stigma. It can cause low self-esteem, a sense of being “wrong” or “lazy” or “broken”, and general unhappiness.

So, what can we do about this?

The best option is my common refrain: open communication. If you have a mental illness, discuss it with your loved ones, then your friends, then those around you. Describe it clinically – the symptoms, the causes, the treatment, the course of the illness. Discuss it as you would your physical illnesses. Don’t apologize for it or act like it’s an imposition on them. It is part of who you are. It is not your fault – even if it partially resulted from some bad choices. Acknowledging it and seeking help counteracts any plausible blame you might carry. Believe that you are not broken. It is not that you should work one way, and somehow got “messed up” along the way. It is part of who you are, so accept it and work to improve your life through treatment of the illness.

Work hard not to stigmatize others. Empathize and support those who have mental illnesses just as you would say “Get well soon!” to a friend with the flu. Try to understand that they are not wrong, not lazy, not at fault for their mental illness. It’s just how they are – maybe it’ll change, maybe it won’t – and you have to accept it, and offer your support for their future.

Learn the facts. Don’t listen to hearsay; go in search of information through the Mayo Clinic website and other online sources. Try to understand what someone means when they mention their problem. Try to understand their behavior in context.

Avoid labelling people by their mental illness. Don’t say “the schizophrenic down the street” – call him John, the man suffering from schizophrenia. She’s not “the depressed girl”, she’s a woman with a life and a future and a past who happens to have a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. If you suffer from mental illness, do not let it become who you are. It is part of you, and that you must accept, but it is not you in your entirety. Don’t label yourself. Don’t let others label you. Just be You, as you were before your diagnosis. Only better, because you’ve decided to get help.

Fortunately, the world is changing. Mental illnesses are getting recognition as illnesses similar to physical illnesses. Treatments are out there, becoming accessible to those who have the courage and the strength (or friends/family with the strength) to seek it. It can be easy to support this on a broad level and reject it on a personal level, though – it’s the “it can’t happen to me” phenomenon. When its someone you love or yourself, it’s a whole lot more real, and makes a lot greater impact than you’d think.

So think. Anticipate. Prepare. And care enough – for yourself and others – to remember that they are people too, “crazy” or not.

Have a thoroughly satisfying day.

Thanks, society.

It isn’t, I swear. I’m doing just fine and I don’t think anyone would call me thin. Nor does dieting solve any of the problems I do have (except being particularly not thin.) I’m sure, though, that even I have internalized this message, because it’s something the past few generations have been pelted with from Day 1 in this country. Thin is beautiful. Thin is successful. Thin is happy. Thin is in love. Thin is satisfied. Thin is perfect.

NO NO NO NO NO NO. It’s not that thin people can’t be all these things, but it’s not a given, and it’s not even likely, considering what the average person would have to do to be that thin. The modelly image that society gives us as our goal shape is a shape 98% of us will never attain. I recently learned that the average American woman is 5’4″ and 140lbs. The average American model is 5’11″ and 117lbs. Those figures are not remotely equal! It’s a problem, and one I’m sure most people have heard about at some point.

At this point, I’m going to direct you to Dove (which is a company I think everyone should buy from to support their Campaign for Real Beauty).This video clip shows you how what you see is not even that 2% of the population that look so beautiful. It’s a computer. We’re all lusting after a computer-generated image.

So how do we break this cycle? We see these images everywhere, and we can’t walk around with blinders on. The number of eating disorders climbs every year as the age of onset drops viciously into 3rd, 2nd, 1st grade classrooms. We are being victimized by those who want to sell us stuff.

First, work on your own body image. Don’t put yourself down. When you say you’re fat, ask yourself if it’s based on a medical numerical figure or just on how you’re feeling – and if it’s the latter, ask what’s causing you to feel that way. Watch what you eat, but don’t make it your life. Distract yourself when you’re feeling crummy about your body. Spend time with people who love you for you, and make sure you tell them that you love them for them. Go dancing or biking or even walking to get that exercise in, rather than punishing yourself at the gym (unless you like the gym.) Boost your self-confidence with a facial or a flattering hair-cut. Don’t take out your self-issues on your body. Chances are, they aren’t your body’s fault.

Then, if you have kids, teach your kids to do these things. Show them the Dove clip. Vehemently point and accuse magazine articles and covers of being anti-feminist and unreal and harmful to our body image. Make that the message they get, and not that their bodies are wrong. Teach them healthy, mindful eating – know what you’re putting in your mouth and why – and take them for romps in the woods, bike rides, raking, any sort of physical activity together. Love them unconditionally. Help them love themselves.

We can take it to the media. When you see an ad or a cover that is obviously fake, or even that you suspect is fake, send this letter to the editors:

To the Editors of ________,

I recently noticed the (ad/cover/article) (description/title/edition) in your publication. The image you chose to display is unrealistic and damaging to the body images of myself and your other readers. I encourage you not to run (that ad/that type of photo/that kind of article) again. I will not and I will encourage others not to purchase your magazine until you print more realistic, less damaging (images/articles) for your readers.

Sincerely,

_____________

Then, don’t buy the magazine. Tell others not to. Boycott the media until it stops this attack on the American body image and rights itself. Buy products that do encourage a healthy body image. Be aware, and be careful.

We all have the power to be beautiful. It has nothing – nothing – to do with being thin.

Have a thoroughly satisfying day.

It’s one of those holidays that some people celebrate and others don’t, but everyone whines and complains about somewhat. If you’re single, it’s the #1 day in the year to skip – it just emphasizes that everyone is sappy, happy, and head-over-heels but you. Even if you genuinely love the sappy romance that is required for the day, you have to hate the trumped-up prices and formulaic cards and demands on the psyche that this holiday makes.

So, why bother?

From a historical perspective, courtesy of history.com, it’s a holiday that originates from St. Valentine, who continued marrying people even after Emperor Claudius II decreed that this was no longer legal. Or it’s the St Valentine who sent love letters while he was in prison for helping Christians escape Rome. Or it’s a festival created by Christians to overtake Lupercalia, the pagan Roman tradition in which people joyously slapped each other with bloody strips of goat hide.

I hadn’t heard of that last one, either.

Anyway, any of those three seem pretty irrelevant today. But people have been celebrating this holiday for centuries – why not keep doing it?

One reason is that the greeting card industry profits almost as much from this holiday as from Christmas. Another reason is that on any other day of the year – except maybe Mother’s Day – prices in resturaunts are cheaper and menus better and more choiceful. Another reasons is just the damned pressure it puts on couples to suddenly express everything they feel for each other. There are reports – none quite reputable enough to cite here – that there are more breakups, separations, and divorces at this time of year than any other. This is is just correlation; maybe Valentine’s Day is so sappy because everyone who doesn’t break up is super grateful and more in love because of this occurrence. Or maybe the pressure of providing the “perfect” Valentine’s Day for their not-so-sweetheart breaks it up. Better to end it than to lie through it and have her cry over your words later.  Or his! I assume some women break up with their men at this time too.

I personally have been single every Valentine’s Day prior to this one, though, and speaking from that voice, I would definitely say do away with this damned holiday.

However.

Growing up, I do have wonderful memories of doing Valentine’s Day in school. My parents have always been wonderful about sending me a card and, when I was home, gifting me with chocolate. I felt extra loved on that day – even though I was single.

Today, I am in a relationship. I have someone that I romantically love. I am looking forward to spending time with him today.

You know what, though? I also love my life, and my situation, and my opportunities. I love the fact that I have a blog on which I spill out my opinions, post after post, and people read and seem to actually get something from my writing. I love living a country where I don’t have to fear the consequences from being pro-choice and outspoken.

So I’m going to propose this: for this Valentine’s Day, whether or not you are single, think of all the things you love about life – people, places, things, activities, memories, whatever – and wish them a happy Valentine’s Day.

As long as you have a little bit of joy in your life, especially in the form of people who care, you are not alone on Valentine’s Day.

Have a thoroughly satisfying day.

It’s a great word. It’s definitely onomatopoetic, and it conjures up an image of something falling, hitting something else and coming in close contact for a split second, and then going on its own way, its direction affected by the other object.

It’s also a euphemism for having sex. It’s also the title of Mary Roach’s great book. It also, interestly enough, is a good sound effect for how I felt every time my brain ran into one of the constant random facts she mentions every other sentence throughout the book. Bonk.

I picked up this book for two reasons: I loved her book, Stiff, which is about what happens to corpses after death (no one calls my – or her – interests conventional), and also I was buying her book, Spook (about the afterlife), for my father’s birthday. Bonk was written in the same romping, wildly fascinating style of Stiff. I was happy.

Mary Roach is a researcher. She plunges into a subject and just chases every detail, every spare fact or fiction she can find. She travels the world looking for related people, experiences, documents, and locations, and then writes down every tidbit she has found. Her books read like a documentary on crack – usually staying “in the scene”, but riddled with slightly random facts and “did you know” moments and, of course, her trademark footnotes. She is hilarious!

You could be a certified sexologist who’s been in practice for 30 years or a teenager with your mind on the subject (and that’s pretty much every teenager) : this book will teach you something.

The book isn’t an instruction manual for copulation, although it does mention the mechanics from time to time. Mary Roach goes on adventures to pursue a myriad of subjects. She reads the documentation of Marie Napoleon’s clitoral relocation. She watches a penile insertion procedure (it’s an alternative to Viagra.) She tours a sex toy factory. She goes looking for Kinsey’s videotaped sessions. She herself underwent an MRI while having sex because they wouldn’t let her watch any other way. Her narration keeps the reader in the scene with her, describing what she sees, what she learns, and the quirky remarks her experts make, punctuated by a fast wit that keeps any reader amused.

On a topic that makes many people uncomfortable, Mary Roach is unabashedly interested and not afraid to share. She uses the awkwardness of the topic to incite laughter and eye-rolling from the reader. And it’s all just so interesting! At one point, she joyously tells the story of the first “panda porn”, instructional videos made so the male pandas might have some idea how to reproduce. Where else can you read about panda porn? You have to read Bonk.

Readers of my blog: if you have a spare half-hour a day, I recommend picking up a copy of this book. It will make you laugh, cringe, and “huh!” out loud no matter who you are.

Have a thoroughly satisfying day.

The website, unfortunately, was a bit vague on what “sex-positive” actually meant. So, as usual, I googled it and went to my old friend, wikipedia. It, too, started off vague. Eventually, though, I came across this definition on the sex-positive feminism page:

“Sex-positive feminism centers on the idea that sexual freedom is an essential component of women’s freedom. As such, sex-positive feminists oppose legal or social efforts to control sexual activities between consenting adults, whether these efforts are initiated by the government, other feminists, opponents of feminism, or any other institution.

They embrace sexual minority groups, endorsing the value of coalition-building with members of groups targeted by sex-negativity. Sex-positive feminism is connected with the sex-positive movement.”

This, I think, sums up a lot of what I’m trying to do with this blog. I’m happy to see that there’s a name – and an established community – for what I’m all about. The Sex-Positive movement is about not being ashamed of sex, and all the crazy, kinky, awkward things that are a part of it. It’s about treating each other like human beings, and not defining people by their sexual preferences – and I don’t mean just homosexuality versus heterosexuality, but also kinks and techniques and even abstinence, if that’s what someone is into. Also it’s about talking about it, and recognizing that all these differences are out there. It’s yet another kind of diversity.

Isn’t that the hottest trend today, anyway? Diversity? Why not for sexuality?

Lastly, it’s about talking about these things. Tell your partner. Stop being ashamed about all the quirks. Open up! You’re not wrong, and you’re not alone. It’s okay! Be positive! Be sex-positive.

For the best possible expression of this movement that I’ve found, check out this awesome article too.

And…have a thoroughly satisfying day!

The economic stimulus package is eeking its way through Congress, but has slimmed down along the way. Among the discarded provisions is, of course, money for family planning. That’s no surprise, given the composition of our government and its history with the issue. I’m a staunch supporter of birth control and counseling and women’s health care (and health care in general.) But is it so incredibly crucial that family planning should be part of this economic stimulus package? I’m not sure.

First off, I’m not an economics major. What even is this stimulus package? As far as I can tell, it’s Obama’s “New Deal” for this depression into which the country has fallen. The plan is to create jobs, provide health care and economic support for the massive numbers of unemployed, cut taxes for those who are struggling, and promote hiring in businesses. Sounds good, huh?

So what role would family planning play in this “stimulus?” According to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, it would “reduce cost.” She repeated that twice on ABC News. Planned Parenthood, of course, called the Medicaid Family Planning State Option “commonsense” and said on their website that it would provide “safety-net health care coverage” for 2.3 million low-income women. Somehow through the magic of projective statistics, they postulate this would prevent half a million unintended pregnancies (I will admit to being skeptical about that kind of precise conjecture.) They also say it would save money at the state level, although they’re a little more vague on those numbers.

As you might have noticed, I tend to side with Planned Parenthood and back their decisions. But you might also have noticed I’m hesitant this time.

I don’t know how to fix the economy, and I do know that having more mouths to feed puts pressure on anyone’s budget. I’m all for extending sexual health care and comprehensive sex education and insurance to as many people as possible – everyone, if possible. But from my little, economically-dumb perspective, I don’t really see how giving millions to family planning services is going to stimulate the economy as a whole.

Pelosi, in the same interview, said that the components of the package are intended “…to help turn the economy around, to stabilize the economy, and to see how much they cost.” I suppose having safe and healthy pregnancies or pregnancy-free lives for the US women prevents some extended hospital stays which drive up the cost of health care, but it seems like high-risk pregnant women and abortions aren’t really a leading cause of the economic disaster. They aren’t what’s destabilizing the economy.

Of course, another irksome detail is that Republicans aren’t going to read my blog and say, “YES! That’s what we were trying to say.” I’m not going to pretend the family planning portion of the bill wasn’t shot down because of the influence of conservative Christians (and general anti-abortionists) on our government. I pretty much assume this is true. I don’t want to be seen as siding with them for that reason at all. Make no mistake : I am pro-choice and want to guarantee reproductive rights to everyone.

So if someone can really explain to me exactly how this Medicaid Family Planning State Option actually stimulates the economy, I will totally get behind it with Pelosi and Planned Parenthood. Until then…I’m going to leave this ruckus unraised.

Have a thoroughly satisfying day.

Some pro-choicers are a little peeved that Obama broke the tradition of repealing this act on the anniversary of Roe v Wade; however, his reasoning – that he wants to de-emphasize the devisiveness of this issue in repealing the act – makes sense to me.

So, in short – yay!

Have a thoroughly satisfying day.