Browsed by
Tag: choice

Rolling around again

Rolling around again

Comments 3 comments

As the years roll by a bit faster, it’s sometimes easy to miss changes. Whether they are changes in values, beliefs, habits, understandings, goals, or just almost unnoticeable drifts of daily life, the occasions for stopping to assess them just become fewer. No more big moves, no more graduations, no more births. You accommodate to the inevitable, and rise to unexpected challenges, and perhaps gain some insights if you’re curious and observant, but things seem to grey down a bit (to match the hair that now has to be artificially colored). Is there anything of particular note in the last year? At first, I didn’t think so, but then I started having thoughts.

A year ago, I was very frustrated and even sometimes angry about some interpersonal challenges. Those feelings have become much more infrequent, partly because I’ve learned how to disengage from attempted escalations about things that are really not very important. I’ve learned how to respond more neutrally when dealing with difficult people, and not to let someone else’s issues affect my whole day or even week.

The deeper understanding about boundaries of various kinds has greatly reduced my stress level, as well as putting me back on track with some of my talents and strengths. The way I was approaching my work day and the things that needed to be done just frankly took too much out of me (that’s improved too) without being angry and upset on top of it all. Last year, I felt like I was on the edge of some sort of major collapse. This year, I’m tired but I feel like I’m accomplishing much more during my work day, I don’t need to isolate myself so often or for so long, and what I think of as my recovery time has reduced somewhat.

I’ve been revisiting the topic of boundaries and friendships for a few years now, but there have been some positive shifts this year.

I’ve tended to be a fiercely loyal friend, but at the same time I’ve had a kind of economy of friendship in which things were very (almost mechanically) reciprocal. If I was being treated well, I would treat the other well. If objectionable behavior was expressed in my direction, I would hit back at just that level, plus one. Usually this took the form of a verbal response. What was really happening? I was hurt, because I considered myself a good and loyal friend, but I wouldn’t admit that hurt, so it turned into a defensive attack. Then, because I had some frustration and anger hanging around anyway, I took it as an opportunity to respond in just that way because… because… because I can. I’m good at it. Words rarely fail me, and I can rip back pretty effectively. Almost effortlessly, I point out flaws and unfairnesses and points of contention, at a pace (and with a passion) that be overwhelming to others. The behavior of the other person ended up not just triggering my defenses but also gave me an excuse to shine, to myself, just because the things I do best don’t really seem to be called for in most of my environments very often. So in addition to forgetting that this was a friend, and not an enemy, I was losing sight of the fact that it was even an individual. It didn’t really matter who I was talking to, because at some level I wasn’t even really talking to that person as a person. I was just letting loose in the space of words, where I feel most comfortable and at home.

I know this sounds like really basic stuff. I didn’t realize how ready I was to believe that defense/attack was required. I grew up largely distrustful of the world around me. I’m an introvert, and often socially uncomfortable in group situations, and there is a habitual feeling that I need to perform and be amusing so that people might not automatically just hate me. Most people who know me think I’m extroverted. I’m not. A nervous laugh, now toned down but still present, developed as a “please don’t hurt me” strategy when I was still very young. Giving anyone a chance to know very much about me, such that we could authentically become friends, or not, is challenging to me. I have a lot of masks, and I love to try them on. When someone actually gets through to me enough that they are able to offend, upset or hurt me, the second layer is that I’m ready to pounce. Like… immediately.

I’ve found a few real friends who model something different in the way they treat me. Because of this, I have realized how unfair it is to people I care about to have this attack mode as the default response when I feel attacked or hurt or upset by their behavior. There are other ways to respond, after all. A simple naming of how it looks to me, such as I would do in a less charged situation, is a far better option, and asking questions to try to understand what’s going on is usually very helpful. If I’m in a better space with myself, I can navigate through all kinds of difficult terrain, but there has to be a basic layer of trust, and I have to do better with remembering my caring toward the other even when I’m feeling disappointed or betrayed.

My reasons for becoming and staying friends with people has sometimes been far too mysterious; there have been too many circumstantial, historical friendships that I felt compelled to maintain long after their times were past. People with whom I really had very little in common other than similar experience of some kind, people who didn’t actually wish to see me thrive, people who demonized me because of political misinformation (or general misunderstanding), people who were attracted to interactions with me, but for reasons that seemed problematic – all of these were like healing projects for me. In some cases, I would feel a strange repulsion/attraction thing going on, and I would try to gradually erase the repulsion side, seeing it more as a problem with me (my critical side has fairly high standards sometimes) than the other person. After all, you create what there is in the “between.” I would know that something was wrong, something was off – maybe even something pathological – but couldn’t articulate to myself what it was. I would spend time and energy assessing, and then trying to “fix” whatever it was – a very Western view of relational ethics, but I’ve never really been that great at acceptance of all that is. Like the angel of history, I wanted to go back and repair the things that had been broken. I kept thinking that “the cosmos” (insert your belief language here) was trying to teach me a lesson. Maybe it was, but it wasn’t the lesson I thought.

Even radical acceptance of the other has to include the boundaries of self-love; you can accept them as they are, and still gauge the best distance at which to keep yourself. I fear I’m never going be able to offer unconditional love to very many people in my life, much less all humanity. Maybe this is a kind of giving up on that, too. The best I can do, and that only sometimes, is to feel genuine sadness about what I’m observing.

In the last year, really only the last year, I have learned how to allow myself to say “there are some major things about this person that I neither like nor respect, and all the positives that are there are not enough to outweigh this fact.” I don’t need to engage in the push me/pull you game, which always felt vaguely dangerous anyway. I can simply walk away, knowing that it’s too destructive or toxic for me, and maybe I don’t even need to know the reasons why.

I have hesitated to allow myself the power of real choice in this matter. Even after things that were fairly egregious, I would try to talk things through, get back to a good place. You don’t abandon your friends, right?

Now I can ask the essential questions of qualification, and still remain true to my ideals about friendship: “Are we actually friends, and if so, on what basis? Of what value is this?” I’m resolved to trust not only the available data, but also my own instincts. If I sense that this person really doesn’t actually like me or get me in any significant ways, seems threatened in some way by my existence, has some kind of agenda, or is really, truly (as Carlin pointed out), stupid, full of shit, nuts – or all three, then I have to trust myself enough to just step back (or back away slowly if needed). If I can formulate any questions to ask, I can do that, but it’s really not required – not if the instincts are strong and I can’t answer the friendship qualification questions affirmatively. I have always been so concerned that maybe I was just being paranoid or overly suspicious because of hard-wired or environmental influences that I sometimes overcompensated and stopped listening to myself. If I get too repeated flashing warning lights, I need to listen, and act accordingly. There is no ethical obligation to befriend anyone.

I value real and meaningful friendships, and you can’t force that. When I disagree with and argue with real friends, as I sometimes do, I’m at least as concerned about where they are as where I am, and the issues are (mostly, I hope) just the ones before us and not piled high and deep with unrelated dynamics.

There are all kinds of friendships. I also value friendships with a light touch, where there is enough common ground that we have fun and we don’t really need to know each other very fully to enjoy each other’s company and conversation. After all, how many true, deep friends has anyone got? Some overlapping interests and compatibilities will work just fine for socializing, communicating, and learning. It’s also part of the natural flow of things for friends to appear and fade through the different times and spaces of your life. It could even be that there’s nothing particularly wrong, but it’s just not a friendship I’m interested in cultivating anymore. No big deal. As one friend I’m very fond of says, “Whatevers.”

While it is true that even asshats can teach you lessons about relationships and boundaries and personal insights, it’s impossible to completely avoid them anyway, and there is no real reason to let them get close enough to be destructive or to drive you crazy. You can’t fix other people. What you can do is be as authentic as you can with the people you truly like and respect, and the effects of that are mutually beneficial.

Of course, I hold in reserve the smackdown ability for when it’s truly useful and needed, but I could and should channel more of that impulse into something more creative. That sort of thing has not only been a blind spot for me, but it’s also been so energy-wasting and disturbing in my life, now that I look back on it. I have a growing sense of the limitations of the time remaining. Another thing that has objectively changed this year is that our son is taller than me, and I wasn’t a young’un when I delivered him. I need to focus on more of the good parts of life.

Next year, it would be really lovely if I could report that I’ve found a lot more energy for everything I want to do, I’ve lost ten-fifteen more pounds, I can hit E above C again, I don’t even crave a cigarette, my novel is selling like hotcakes, my student loans have been paid off as a token gesture against my lottery winnings, and I’m living on the most beautiful island you’ve ever seen. This is in rough order of probability. I’m putting it all out there in case there’s anything to that set of beliefs around focused intention – from dumping it onto the gods/goddesses to lining up with the mild (or strident) forms of the “power of positive thinking.” I welcome gifts from the benevolents, as always, and I’m totally grateful, but you could maybe tone it down a little on the pranks this year (just a sweet suggestion, especially if you’re hankering for more sage and lavender this summer).

Maybe next year, a few more things will be better than they were before, and the changes might even be in a completely different register – all part of the lifelong journey for curious seekers.

Be well. Be strong. Be kind. Laugh every day. You can dance if you want to. If you need some perspective, revisit the wonder of the starry skies above.

“Stars” by The Weepies

Tangerines are hanging heavy, glowing marigolden hues
Teasing a half-pale moon
And I feel a pull to the blue-velvet dark and stars.
Stars. Stars.

Pink Magnolia, blushing and coy
Savors the sun while she shines
You’ve got yours and I’ve got mine
Together we glide through the blue-velvet dark and stars.
Stars. Stars.

All it takes is a little faith, and a lot of heart
Back and forth we ply these oars
They move in time and get entwined
Green with joy then gray with sorrow
Ripened fruit that falls tomorrow
Filling us with brilliance

Branches are bare with a pulse underneath
Flowering slowly inside
Your hands are warm and my body is wide
To hold all the promise of blue-velvet dark and stars

All it takes is a little faith and a lot of heart
Sweetheart

White House Switchboard

White House Switchboard

Comments 3 comments

Political comedy email making the rounds…

“Thank you for calling the White House switchboard. Our new voice activated system will help direct you to the proper office.”

“If you are calling to complain about the mishandling of the war in Iraq, press one.”

“If you are calling to complain about the abuse of prisoners and the White House’s endorsement of torture, press two, and then say the name of the torture site that you wish to complain about (and please note for the sake of the voice mail system that it is pronounced Abu GRABE, not Abu grahb).”

“If you are calling to complain about illegal spying on American citizens and the abuse of FISA laws, press 3, but do know that these calls will be recorded.”

“If you are calling to complain about the disastrous mismanagement of the hurricane Katrina recovery, please press 4, and your call will be directed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If you wait for more than 48 hours without anyone picking up the phone, hang-up and send a letter. We have been assured that all letters will receive a prompt reply within one year.”

“If you are calling regarding the administration’s unwillingness to enforce immigration law, press cinco, por favor, or direct any thanks to your local chamber of commerce office, which can explain why we like cheap labor that can’t vote and where you may be able to find willing illegal day laborers in your local area.”

“If you are Jack Abramoff or any Saudi prince, please call the private line * it is always open.”

“If you are calling about the Medicare prescription debacle, please press 6. If you are having a medical emergency, you should proceed directly to your local emergency room, although please understand that your health coverage may not pay for the visit and you can no longer get out from under the bill by declaring bankruptcy.”

“If you are calling about the ballooning federal deficit or the recent hike in the debt ceiling to $3 trillion, please press 7, unless you are Bill Clinton calling to brag about the surpluses under your administration, in which case we don’t want to hear about it.”

“If you are calling to complain about the White House’s efforts to block stem cell research, please press 8, and then say the disease that you are most concerned about that may ultimately be cured through scientific
research. If you are a scientist calling with new research findings or important clinical data, please hang up, we don’t want to hear from you.”

“If you are calling to express concern about global warming and our efforts to roll back environmental laws, please press 9, unless you are a government scientist, in which case you are forbidden to talk without first clearing it with the oil lobbyist we hired to screen and edit your research. He can be reached at Exxon 4-2611.”

“If you are calling to complain about the President’s efforts to “privatize” social security, please press 1 and then the pound key, and your call will be redirected to representatives at Merrill Lynch, who will explain the
virtues of putting all your savings in the stock market.”

“If you are calling about the need for more prayer in public schools or any other faith-based initiatives, please press 1 and then the star key, and Reverend Falwell will be with you shortly.”

“If you are calling to lobby for more Supreme Court Justices who will block a woman’s right to choose, please stay on the line and the President will be with you immediately.”

“If you are calling about all the tax breaks for the wealthy, press *1 if you have ideas for more loopholes and are making more than a million dollars per year; if you are earning less than a million per year but have ideas for how you may help the wealthy, press *2; if you are earning less than a million per year and just want to complain that all the burden is now falling on you, please call back in a couple of years.”

“If you voted for President Bush and are now concerned that over 12% of the U.S. population now falls below the poverty line while the top 1% has wildly increased their wealth, please understand that we are not laughing AT you.”

“Press zero at any time if you would like to hear these options again.”

“Thank you for calling the White House. It is our pleasure to serve you.”

(Thanks Corinne!)

Napoli: Sodomy of religious virgins might justify abortion

Napoli: Sodomy of religious virgins might justify abortion

Comments 2 comments

I don’t think I had ever seen South Dakota’s State Senator Bill Napoli speak before tonight. He was commenting on the abortion ban there that would close down – gulp – the only operating clinic that’s left in the entire state (this one clinic has to fly in medical volunteers from out-of-state). Guess there wasn’t really much left to do.

Online NewsHour: South Dakota Bans Most Types Of Abortion — March 3, 2006

BILL NAPOLI: When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn’t allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: You really do?

BILL NAPOLI: Yes, I do. I don’t think we’re so far beyond that, that we can’t go back to that.

Sounds almost sweet, huh? Like the "wild west" reference, which frames the whole thing. In the actual "wild west," women didn’t do very well… Of course, the west wasn’t "wild" when this guy was growing up.

Under what circumstances would Mr. Napoli concede that a woman (or her community) might be allowed to consider abortion? Rape or incest? um… well…. actually….even those cases would have to come under "danger to life of the mother."

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

The case he allowed that might actually "endanger the woman’s life" would be if she were a religious virgin saving herself for marriage" and she was not only brutally raped but also sodomized (because she was sodomized? Does he need some basic sex ed on how pregnancy occurs?). Note that just being a virgin isn’t enough, and that he assumes virginity isn’t actually a choice made in full knowledge and self-value, but only in "religious" conviction (or more likely, quasi-religious pressure).

Note also that the ideal situation is where the community makes the decision for the people involved – both that the woman will carry to term and that the two will marry. What a great basis for commitment – an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. Maybe we should hear some autobiographies from people who had marriages with that auspicious beginning. I can’t think of many men who would welcome a return of the shotgun wedding either. Oh, and should uncle or brother daddy marry the one they "savage"?

His delivery was shocking. It was almost as if the thought of the brutalization of the woman – oh wait, he said "girl" – was a turn-on for him. The last sentence was a bit of an afterthought. Here is a man who clearly views women as property to be controlled and dominated (and even protected – as property). How is he that much different than the rapist he cites?

In any case, "danger to the life of the mother" is usually interpreted in quite narrow terms – that carrying to term might well result in the literal death of the mother – such as with an ectopic pregnancy or other medical conditions.

 

Is it virgin sodomy that makes all the difference for him? Is a woman who isn’t a virgin less traumatized by rape or incest? Is it all about the qualities of the rapist – the brutalizing, sodomizing defiler of religious virgins? Is it enough to be an anal virgin? (Actually, anal and oral intercourse are on the rise among the "no-sex" pledgers. Hope they don’t catch a disease while they’re trying not to get pregnant without birth control.)

Watch for other moves back to the "good old days" too. For people who are so against abortion, they are oddly and ferociously opposed to the proven factors of reducing the number of abortions: birth control, sex education, women’s education and training, equality, and freedom of opportunity. What next? Barring women from the vote or from owning property? Will American women be disallowed from wearing miniskirts, working outside the home, going to college, driving a car?

Fundamentalist sexism and domination of women looks very similar to me across religions. It’s about the same thing as rape – it’s about power, it’s about controlling and dominating women into a semi-subhuman status. Watch what happens to those women in those communities when they don’t have the abortion. See how friendly their neighbors are to a single woman with a child, or to a struggling family with five. Shall we bring back the good old witchcraft charges too?

In a way, I understand. Some people don’t want to have to face reality. There is so much change, and they don’t know where or how they will fit. It’s clear that many of us will be sacrificed to the Mammon, the "god of money." There is meth addiction, there is crime, there is disrespect to "elders" – surely it feels like apocalypse approacheth. It’s strange that they refuse to look at economic factors – but it’s clear that our children and grandchildren will live in a very different world. My generation is the first that has not (on the whole) done as well as our parents did. So some of us can’t actually face the world we live in – we’ve had it relatively easy and some have an irrational assumption that the world owes us something whether or not we’ve earned it or deserve it (shall we call it the W syndrome?). We pretend that there is no poverty while it’s actually increasing, that all parents must by definition be wonderful people, that kin don’t rape or otherwise hurt one another, that everyone who is the least bit different from our comfort group must be evil, that people who do their own thinking and make their own ethical choices are a threat to those who simply submit to authority (hoping they will be spared?). Some people can’t even really understand that there are other countries or people different than the "folks" on our street – most Americans only speak one language. Of course our own "group" has its problems as well, but if we are not directly affected we tend to ignore that as much as possible. We want to protect our kith and kin and we like to hide in the safe comfort of our folk mythologies.

But these are childish reactions, and they bring out very bad things in us. They bring out the very things that every prophet warns against. America is living in a very thin veil of self-induced hallucinations. Part of the "good old days" mythology has to do with dominating women – oh, and killing Indians in the "Wild West." Violence against immigrants, especially Mexicans, is on the rise.

A religious response would have to listen compassionately to narratives of actual, truthful experience (as you would have your God hear you) before proposing solutions or making judgments. These politicians don’t do that very much – and neither do many of their constituents. Listen to the stories of the women who are desperate enough to abort their pregnancies that they travel hundreds of miles to the only clinic in the state to get it done. Listen to the circumstances by which a woman decides to end a pregnancy – it is no easy thing to decide. The stories are often heartbreaking. There are women who have had abortions and regretted it deeply – this is true. There are women who have not, and paid dearly.

This issue is a handy tool to drive people apart because abortion is a very controversial and difficult topic. Ultimately, though, it is not the job of the government to mandate a woman’s reproductive life. Such decisions have to reside with the woman, with her God (if she is a believer) and in consultation with her doctor.

Maybe that’s the beef – that finally there is a matter in which a woman has the final say-so. How threatening to the fragile male ego.

Roe v. Wade was the compromise. If your daughter or your sister or your mother or your friend were in a position where abortion had to be contemplated, you might think differently. Or maybe not – maybe you’re in that group who wants to turn America into a theocracy – complete with stoning?

Added March 4th: Mark Morford’s reaction to all this is much more strident – and witty. Read "S. Dakota Slaps Up Its Women: Another state you should never visit passes an appalling abortion ban, because they hate you"

Take action on Supreme Court Nomination

Take action on Supreme Court Nomination

Comments 1 comment

Time to put the pressure on! Now that we’ve lost an important moderate swing vote in Sandra Day O’Connor, we have to make sure that a right-wing ideologue doesn’t take her place. A meaningful candidate, qualified for the job and acceptable to both sides of the aisle would go a long way toward protecting our liberty, rights, environment, choices, and all the rest while protecting us against the ongoing dismantlement of our representative democracy. Surely we deserve someone who will be fair on all issues. The Supreme Court is the last word of authority on the interpretation of the Constitution – this body is a very important check and balance against tyranny of all kinds. To stock it with corrupted persons would be a disaster for the American people. The right-wing likes to invoke the term “judicial activism” – but you only need to look at some of their top people to understand why they need to project that image against liberals.

“They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.” – George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

Call and write your senators as often as you can – be sure always to be respectful and calm. You can email them using this banner, but telephoning or writing an actual letter seems to be the preferred form of action.

Please sign on to any of these that you agree with:

The President and Republican leaders have a choice: choose a battle that divides America, or seek a middle ground with a nominee we all can trust to fairly interpret and uphold the Constitution and the law. Let the Senators who will make this important decision know that America doesn’t want us to rubber stamp the President’s nominee
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/norubberstamps

This is an extremely important time for our senators to hear from us. They need to know that we are counting on them to stand up to President Bush and protect our rights — because with a moderate like O’Connor stepping down and a far-right like Bush making the nomination, well, the stakes couldn’t be higher. MoveOn PAC has started an emergency petition, and we’re looking to get 250,000 signatures and comments to the Senate before Tuesday — which is when rumor has it Bush will announce his nomination.

http://www.moveonpac.org/protectourrights

Please sign the petition urging President Bush to nominate a consensus candidate that will unite and not divide Americans. Our nation has been polarized, and we have gone on record urging a different direction, but we will be prepared to fight if necessary.

http://www.democraticaction.org/ftaf/consensusjudge.html

As Texas governor, George W. Bush demonstrated that he doesn’t require legal skills for a judicial nominees. His only requirement was that judges share his anti-abortion, pro-corporation ideology. Many of his nominations to the federal bench seem to have followed the same pattern. The character and record of anyone nominated to our nation’s highest court must be thoroughly reviewed and considered by the Senate in their important “advice and consent” role. The Senate must be certain the nominee can discern between personal conviction and interpretation of the law as they balance the interpretation of our Constitution and our democracy’s promise to protect and expand the civil liberties of all people, not just the privileged few. Please contact your Senators immediately and urge them to oppose any nominee to fill Justice O’Connor’s vacancy who would overturn Roe v. Wade or limit the civil and human rights of any group of people.

http://www.now.org/index.html – for home page of now.org
http://capwiz.com/now/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7770896 – to contact your senators through their system

Now that President Bush has the power to appoint an anti-choice justice to the Supreme Court, we are just one vote away from the end of Roe v. Wade, one vote away from the end of your right to choose. We deserve to know where nominees to the Supreme Court stand on such core mainstream values as privacy, personal freedom, and a woman’s right to choose. The stakes are simply too high to gamble on a nominee who refuses to reveal his or her stand on important constitutional issues. We must be able to count on judges to protect our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and respect individual rights. Ask your Senators to ask tough questions during the confirmation process to ensure that the next Supreme Court justice can do just that.
http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/choose_justice?

Another worthwhile petition to sign is the one to support the idea that our representatives should have to actually read the bills before they vote on them. Makes sense, eh?

I urge you to ask your representatives to please sponsor DownsizeDC.org’s “Read the Bills Act of 2005” (RTBA).

http://action.downsizedc.org

I am sure there are other petitions, actions, and so on. Feel free to add more in the comments – but don’t bother adding anything that supports getting rid of public education, equal rights, choice, destroying the environment and the like. I have no patience with it today.

Notes on “Feminazi”

Notes on “Feminazi”

Comments 3 comments

Rush Limbaugh defends his use of the term “feminazi” as “right” and “accurate” in response to a June 22 Washington Post article on Sen. Richard J. Durbin’s (D-IL) controversial floor statement that referenced Nazis. The Post article mentioned Limbaugh’s use of the term “feminazi” as well as other examples of recent political debates in which Nazism has been invoked. From the June 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

In The Washington Post we get a little story: “Tips for the Democrats, Hint: Next time don’t compare anybody to Hitler.” And by the way, the only reason they’re doing it is because Rush Limbaugh invented the term “feminazi.” That’s the sum total of the Washington Post story — Durbin did it because I popularized it first with “feminazi.” I haven’t used that term on this program in years. But it still gets to ’em, doesn’t it? And you know why? [chuckles] Because it’s right. Because it’s accurate. [laughs] And I’m not going to apologize, but I will apologize if it hurts your feelings. But you know what? I think if you’re offended, it’s your problem. It’s not mine.

Interesting that he claims he hasn’t used that term in years – I have heard him use it on several occasions while trolling across the dial. Media Matters notes that Limbaugh referred to the National Center for Women & Policing and the Feminist Majority Foundation as “feminazis” on his May 27, 2004, broadcast, for example. And here’s another where is is reminscining about an event at New York’s 92nd Street Y also attended by CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield:

It was a frosty evening that night. It had to be, what, back in 1992 or ’93? And I’ll tell you what got me in trouble. Greenfield said, “You really used the word ‘feminazi’? Do you not think that’s an upsetting word to Jews?”

I said, “Well, I don’t think it should be. I mean, if you look at what abortion is, it’s almost comparable to what happened in World War II.” Pfft! Man, you could have felt the ice…”

What is a feminazi? Wikipedia defines: A feminazi is a neologism and invective term of the words feminist and Nazi, used predominantly in United States conservative political rhetoric, to characterize women whose ideas they disagree with as misandrous. That is as having a hatred of men. The term was popularized by prominent broadcaster Rush Limbaugh, who credited his friend Tom Hazlett, a professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, with coining the term. In the extreme formulation, feminazis are seen by conservative commentators as women who persecute men. The term “Feminazi” is not self-applied by any feminist movement or group. The term is often used as a derogatory term for feminist.

Trivia: A similar term Femnazi was coined earlier as the name of the male hating female inhabitants of the fictional planet, Femnaz, in a Legion of Super-heroes story from a 1964 issue of Adventure Comics written by Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel.

What is missing from this definition – fine as far as it goes – is that the hard pseudoreligious right attaches the “Nazi” part of the word to condense a framing of abortion as genocide. Feminazis are defined as pro-abortion, although the term seems to be applied to all feminists, regardless of the topic, as well. That’s already a significant spin of rhetoric. It implies moral bankruptcy and invokes the familiar thought-constellation of “baby-killers, destroyers of life, murderers.”

I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who was truly pro-abortion. I don’t know anyone who would not prefer that abortions were completely unnecessary in all circumstances. Abortion rates (legal or otherwise – you don’t really think there are no abortions when they are illegal, do you?) go down when there is family-planning, birth control, sex education, and honest discussion – when there is less rape and incest and poverty, and so on. The religious right doesn’t seem much concerned about these issues, in contradiction to their claims of moral superiority. How many of the poor are consigned to death or misery under the grand plan of their pro-rich policies? Who wants to cut social programs? No – it’s not about life. It’s about controlling women. They’ve even got some women on board with this. Sheesh. What a classic projection to accuse women of hating men in order to support attitudes that are intended to control women, their bodies, their sexuality, and their choices.

The “knocked-up” women of the rich have always had the option of abortion at the convenience of their men, but I am more concerned about people whose lives can be destroyed rather than Vanessa missing a semester at Yale or disappointing her soon-to-be hubby Biff or whatever. I’d not like to see a return to the days of backalleys and wire hangers. If this were really about “life,” the children born would be welcomed, healthcare would be provided, and so on – not to mention that such folk would have to be opposed to the death penalty. Some of these folks want to bring back stoning (don’t believe me? do a little research of your own). It’s interesting that there are few vegetarians among the hard right – a cow is much more sentient than an 8-week old fetus that doesn’t even have any brainwaves (i.e no consciousness of any kind).

I am also very concerned that fewer doctors are receiving the training to do the basic procedure, which has other uses (as most women know).

Abortion is a complex and ethically-fraught topic. To rhetorically conflate those pro-choicers who are perhaps more familiar with the raw edges of human experience – and who wish to allow women the space for more control over their own bodies and futures without the intervention of patriarchal government structures – with “Nazis” is dishonest, more so than Durbin’s remark. Such women for personal choices in these areas are nothing like Nazis – the ultimate “anti-choice” and “anti-freedom” power structure of the last century. Let’s not forget the men who are for choice either – how many men are forced into shotgun weddings anymore?

Hard-liner anti-choicers consider my ruptured ectopic pregnancy (that nearly killed me and for which there was no hope whatsoever of the survival of the fetus) as an abortion – tell me, what was the alternative?

Roe v Wade was the compromise on a very controversial topic. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. If your sister is raped by your dad, you work it out as best you can using your own decision-making process, with your own network of advisors, and within your own relation to the sacred. And if your child is slated to live three years in horrible pain before dying – and you decide that such a life is better than no life, it is your decision. If your child is born into abject poverty, and that’s ok with you, go for it. If you’ve not raised your children with an understanding about sexuality and their responsibilities because you fear that talking about sex makes it happen, if your boy doesn’t carry a condom because he is in denial that anything will happen, if your daughter enters a fugue state in which she denies she is even pregnant….and you will support and welcome such children to such unprepared parents – that is also your choice. But all the feel-good religious talk in the world isn’t going to matter so much when you and friends and family members are actually confronted with some of the very difficult possibilities surrounding sexuality and reproduction. Talk to your parents and grandparents, look around you. In such cases, there is often no right answer, and the question is who makes the decision? I think that people should be able to make decisions about ethics and religion themselves, especially when it has to do with their own body – and yes, the women has the primary decision-making authority (unless the man wants to carry the pregnancy to term). Besides, in this day and age, education is not only about pregnancy – it’s also about disease. To be uninformed and uneducated and in denial is not only stupid, it’s dangerous.

As a former evangelist and a religion scholar, I know that there is not much in the way of biblical support for being against sex education or birth control. The example of Onan – used against both birth control and masturbation – was an example of someone disobeying God’s weird command (in the circumstances) to have sex and produce a child with his dead brother’s wife. Really read that narrative and then try to justify the arguments! He “spilt his seed upon the ground” (Genesis 38:7-9), but it was the reason and motivation for doing so that was – in the context – wrong. The sin was disobedience – refusing to give his brother’s wife an heir. How many people would accept the surrounding circumstance – that you should marry and have sex with your dead brother’s wife?

In any case, pro-choice views do not imply hating men at all – but only resisting those structures and those men who view women as property, with bodies to be controlled by them. I don’t hate men. I’m a married mom – and my husband values my feminism, and shares my views as part of human rights. There are men-haters, of course (although I suspect not nearly as many as women-haters) but the two groups of “men-haters” and “feminists” are not identical.

Still, “feminazi” is a clever twist of rhetoric. It’s catchy. And it certainly has been effective. Fewer and fewer women self-identify as feminists anymore. Many don’t even realize that there are dozen of kinds of feminisms. All that subtlety and complexity and public discussion – gone. I think that some of the feminists moved on too quickly from real social issues into language politics – and got sidelined at a crucial moment. The messages have not reached popular understanding. I still run into folk who believe it’s all about not shaving or about burning bras!

We are becoming barbaric again – and it isn’t even in the service of any recognizable religious values. The judeo-christian values – caring for the poor, compassion, forgiveness, grace, communion, and so on – are not in evidence – only the ancient controls over the people, and these taken out of context.

All of this for Mammon – money, power, corruption – and supported by the most spectacular examples of repulsive false prophets I could have imagined.

Abstinence-Only Education Teaches Blatant Lies

Abstinence-Only Education Teaches Blatant Lies

Comments 0 Comment

This NOW press release is only one of many on Waxman’s report, but I want to do my part to get this out there. Read the complete report at http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

Just as a side note – does anyone stop to think of the basic fact that abortions in the USA increased during Bush, decreased during Clinton, increased during Bush II?

A report released on Dec. 1 by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., found that abstinence-only education programs supported by George W. Bush, and carried out with federal funding by a variety of right-wing organizations, contain outrageously false information about reproductive health issues.

Rep. Waxman’s report examines the scientific and medical accuracy of the most popular abstinence-only curricula used by grantees of the largest federal abstinence initiative, SPRANS (Special Programs of Regional and National Significance Community-Based Abstinence Education). Through SPRANS, the Department of Health and Human Services provides grants to community organizations that teach abstinence-only curricula to youth. These curricula are not reviewed for accuracy by the federal government, nor are grantees required to have any expertise in the area.

The report finds that over 80 percent of the abstinence-only curricula, used by over two-thirds of SPRANS grantees in 2003, contain false, misleading or distorted information. This information distorts data about the effectiveness of contraceptives, misrepresents the risks associated with abortion, blurs religion and science, treats stereotypes about girls and boys as scientific fact, and contains basic scientific errors.

Among these inaccuracies are reports that a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms. One curriculum states that 5 to 10 percent of women who have legal abortions will become sterile. Many of the curricula present as scientific fact the religious view that life begins at conception — one calls a 43-day-old fetus a “thinking person” and another describes a fetus as “snuggling into the soft nest in the lining of the mother’s uterus.” Some of the curricula erroneously state that touching another person’s genitals “can result in pregnancy,” and others claim that the HIV virus can be spread through contact with another person’s sweat or tears.

Perhaps the most disturbing information being disseminated through these programs is the reinforcement of gender stereotypes about differences between women and men. One curriculum instructs, “Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments.” Another lists “Financial Support” as one of the “5 Major Needs of Women,” and “Domestic Support” as one of the “5 Major Needs of Men.” This same curriculum encourages girls to show their admiration of boys by “regard[ing] him with wonder, delight, and approval.”

Under the Bush administration, federal funding for such programs has grown rapidly. In fiscal year 2005, the federal government will spend $170 million on abstinence-only education. This is twice the amount spent on such programs in fiscal year 2001.

Unlike comprehensive sex education, abstinence-only programs have not been shown to decrease rates of teen pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. In fact, a recent study found that youth who pledge abstinence are significantly less likely to make informed choices about precautions when they do have sex. This $170 million would be better used for accurate sex education and family planning information that includes abstinence among the options.