An Amateur Historian's Linguistic Annoyance

I'm watching a documentary on the Etruscans. Yes I'm a nerd, this is established. I'm irritated with the historian/archaeology presenters.

First, a thirty-second background on Etruscans because I usually assume I'm the only ancient history weirdo in the room. Please ignore the next two paragraphs if you're already all well-versed in Etruscan history, or medium-versed, or even know the name...in fact, feel free to comment with corrections if I've gotten any details wrong.

Etruscans were the big-time civilization in Italy prior to Rome. They were extremely wealthy, extremely cosmopolitan, and it appears they were extremely egalitarian when it came to men and women. Greeks didn't like Etruscan women because they ate with their husbands (GASP...like equals, like a date where the dude actually wanted to spend time with his wife and hear what she had to say? What the fuck, Etruria?), they read, wrote, rode horses, they had their own names (OMFG, they weren't just named after their daddy-owners like Roman women, waiting to be passed off to their husband-owners?), they were treated as equals in parenting (as seen in funerary monuments identifying the dead as "son of" or "daughter of" BOTH parents' names), and they had the gall to be both athletic and sexual.

Etruria (now Tuscany) was eventually conquered by Rome and much of their art/customs were assimilated into Roman society...the ones they found useful, anyway. Similarly, Etruscan families were eventually assimilated into Roman society. The loss of female standing and cycle back to male-dominated society when the Etruscans were all Borg'd into Rome isn't what makes me irked. Over thousands of years and the rise and fall of tribes and civilizations there seems to be cycles of one sex dominating the other with periods of equality popping up here and there. That equality is never perfect and always relative to the surrounding nations, just as it is today.

All of these tidbits are presented in the documentary by historians and archaeologists who've studied and made assumptions/conclusions/maybe guesses about Etruscan society as a whole based on the evidence at hand.

This is not what irritates me about the otherwise awesomely fascinating documentary.

It's annoying as hell to talk about women's rights as GIVEN TO THEM by the men of the society. When a PhD or respected historian uses phrases like "Etruscan women were ALLOWED more freedom than Greek or Roman women" (emphasis is mine) the base assumption is that women don't and didn't have that power to begin with. If there is little evidence other than the facts archaeology and surrounding literature provides (reading, writing, eating, names, etc) why must the scholars make the sexist assumption that women were GIVEN these things?

Maybe they set up their society that way from the beginning. Maybe that society valued both men and women as (again, gasp) people. Maybe women allowed men the power they had.

My point is, there's no way to know, and these sorts of ingrained assumptions are really terrible in innocuous ways. It's easy to take away rights from someone if you are brought around to sincere believe that you GIFTED them those rights from the beginning, not that they inherently have rights to respect, earning and keeping their own stuff, their very personhood. Why is it so damn hard to think that people thousands of years ago might have actually valued all citizens* in their society and built their customs and laws to reflect that value?

I sincerely wish more scholars would take a step back and consider their words and basic biases before presenting conclusions. After all, science (yay science!) has now proven some of those male Viking warrior burials were actually female: undeniably female skeletons with war wounds, buried with war grave goods, assumed to be male only because the evidence said "warrior". Assuming more egalitarian ancient societies were only more equal because the males in charge "allowed" the women freedom and rights is a disservice to that society as a whole. It's important to examine and discard biases and just present the damn facts: women had more power in Etruscan society than Greek or Roman women had. Period.

Perpetuating historical sexism when it actually isn't proven only perpetuates modern day sexism.

*Yes, Etruscans kept slaves, just as many ancient cultures did. Slavery is a different treatise altogether, because if I am for agency and personhood I am for it in every case, which means slavery is both a related and different topic to feminism in historical accounts. Ultimately, just like many other cultures, I think they sucked for keeping slaves. THIS post, however, is about how historians can easily STILL say women were "GIVEN" their basic rights by the men, even when science hasn't provided proof either way.

The Light Isn't Dead.

I'm a dark person.

I am. I cover it with humor and smartass pithy comments, but it's often hard for me to see the light in the world. The kindness. The compassion. The good.

I live in one of the most progressive states in what used to be one of the more progressive countries on the planet. In the last month I've watched rights for women whittled away state by state as fascists and religious extremists take more and more control of the country I live in, as evil people attempt to control women's sexuality and freedom under the guise of their belief.

For the past few years I've watched evil people attempt to eradicate anyone brown, or black, or red, or  poor (any heritage other than their own pasty, wealthy WASPs, really) by any means possible.

As if this country wasn't built on the backs of anyone NOT WASPy. As if they have some right to absolute rule, an unspoken tyrant oligarchy with a despot king at the helm, and willful ignorance celebrates it all.  Current leadership here has emboldened hate.

Yep, I'm pulling out the evil card, because that level of selfishness and disregard for other humans in favor of money and power is an infection that spreads like a damn virus of hate, and I find perpetuating hate pretty fucking evil. Detention camps in which the very children they insist they're saving with anti-woman reproductive care bills die, hateful rhetoric, dehumanizing speeches comparing human beings to animals and insects, Neo-Nazi marches, refusing sanctuary to war refugees...anything they can think of that stays under the international criminal court's radar.

It's exhausting and depressing. The weight of watching this happen and feeling so utterly helpless to create any real change can get utterly overwhelming. I mean, I understand and agree with the quote "all evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing" (as an aside, the etymology of that phrase is amazing, and worth looking up), but what does that mean in a practical sense? What can one person do against a mob? What possible difference can I make, or am I just stuck watching this happen, wringing my hands and standing by (or in this case, writing by)?

The historian in me recognizes this dystopian, awful period is a relatively predictable societal swing that will come back eventually, but that's neither comforting nor helpful. The swing away from respecting people as fellow human beings, as equals who can and should run their own lives, is horrifying. It's not too surprising:humans throughout history have consistently been horrifying to each other. We haven't learned much in our thousands of years on this spaceball about how to treat our own species. But we've also been incredibly, inspiringly, kind to each other. The dichotomy of humanity is full of extremes, and we are living through a period that could get so unimaginably worse, but it could also be turned.

There is still light.

There is always still light to be found, if you look for it. It's possible for a time we'll need to celebrate small victories to encourage compassion and kindness. I am a dark person. I have to sometimes look very hard for the light when things seem extra terrible to me, a state I can be in by the nasty tricks of depression in my mind just as much as news and social media. So here are some examples of light I found today just while writing this post over lunch. 

• Dr. Jen Gunter standing up unfailingly and unwaveringly for proper OBGYN care, and furiously, tenaciously correcting the lies spread about women and women's bodies. 
• Men and women publicly standing up together to say enough: publicly discussing things that were hidden in shadows for ages, advocating for POC and for refugee and immigrant rights.  
• Spring arriving in Minnesota after a horridly cold winter, as Nature wakes up and comforts with warm sun and fresh breezes. It is a season of hope and possibility, of new growth and increasing light here, and that does help. 
• My nephew sharing hugs with his sister and brothers because he's the most empathetic little boy I've ever met, and I adore him for having such consideration for others at six years old when so many in middle age have none. 
• I've seen Mr. Rogers' "Look for the helpers in an emergency" quote a lot lately, which tells me others are also looking for some good to hold onto. That means no matter how alone we might feel, we are NOT. 

There are things in this world worth fighting for, but right now it may take a little work to find a way to see the slivers of light that are meaningful to you, and stand up for them. "Be the change you want to see in the world" isn't a silly cliche: we are responsible for our reactions to the universe and creating/maintaining our environment. No one person can be responsible for fixing the whole of their world, but we can be in charge of the way we help: that means cleaning up where we can. Stand up for humanity. Stand up for your environment, for your universe, even in the smallest ways, because that shit adds up and is seen. Stand up for love: no matter what religion you claim to participate in, they all emphasize loving and respecting other humans, even those who are different from you.

And when the world seems to have forgotten that, be the light by remembering and demonstrating it.

When I can't see the light for myself, I can sure as hell hope someone else can see it through my actions. There is light to counter the darkness: you can find it.

If you can't find it, you can MAKE it. 

There is still good. There is still hope. We are still here.

Make America Educated Again

I'm not sure how to title this post, because the utter stupidity of the conversation that sparked it annoyed me so much I needed a couple of days to decide how to approach the subject.

Two days ago Minnesota held Primary Elections. I was outside letting Ragnar snuffle around instead of doing the business he was supposed to be doing, and my neighbor walked by. I've talked about her before, and to be fair we mostly get along. But Tuesday she received a real response from me, because her self-absorbed stupid was just amazing.

She started the conversation by complaining that our property taxes will go up again because my city had "yet another stupid school levy pass".

Ok, I was confused at the bitter snarky tone. "Why is that a problem? Good schools mean good neighborhoods which mean good housing prices and upkeep." I honestly think she expected me, a single woman with no kids, to actually agree with her. Instead I continued, "I don't have kids but I WANT good schools, so I'm happy to pay the levies...a good school system makes the whole city better to live in."

Selfish to the core, she immediately changed tactics, because ultimately her fussing is purely based on "I don't have kids in school, why should I have to pay" which I find to be an underlying formula based on self-absorbed myopia among many MAGA folks: "I don't have/do x, so I shouldn't have to pay for y." Yeah. I'll get to that idiot argument in a minute. Her argument changed to "well it all goes into teacher pensions anyway, none of the kids see any of that money."

OH MY FUCKING GODDESS, YOU SELFISH IDIOT.

I didn't say it out loud. I so wanted to. Instead I said, calmly, "So...teachers already don't get paid enough for what they're doing, and you begrudge them a decent pension after they spend decades putting their own money toward underfunded school supplies and work ridiculous numbers of hours for ridiculously low pay to educate the people who will eventually run the nursing home you end up in? I disagree."

She flounced (as well as a 70 year old cranky old bat can flounce, anyway) with the following parting shot: "Nobody paid for MY pension and I never made enough money. Why should I pay for them?" Can you hear the nasty combination of whine and bitterness in her tone? I did. Ugh. Then she slammed the door, thus endeth her proclamation.

So, as amusing and idiotic as she is, the whole conversation disturbs the crap out of me, particularly in this current political climate and with an a-hole like Betsy Davros at the helm of national education directives. Let's remember what the difference is between SOCIALISM and SOCIETY is, shall we, because there seems to be some serious confusion regarding freedom, socialism, education, and the benefits/responsibilities of living in a society by a whole fuckload of selfish asshats since the idiot cheeto came to power.

• If you drive on roads, YOU BENEFIT FROM SOCIETY. 
• If you get city water/sewer service to your house, YOU BENEFIT FROM SOCIETY. 
• If your public education is decent, your neighborhood is more desirable. 
• If your neighborhood is more desirable, your housing prices rise (including the value of your own property, which is essentially an investment of many folks' personal wealth) and those who buy into the neighborhood tend to take care of their property, and YOU BENEFIT FROM SOCIETY. 
• If your home is on fire and you call the fire department, YOU BENEFIT FROM SOCIETY. 
• If you have need to call 911 for cops or paramedics, YOU BENEFIT FROM SOCIETY. 

If you can read, you can learn to understand the laws (you know, laws enacted by society?). If you can understand the laws, you can support or dissent. If you can disagree with a law you understand, you can discuss with others and potentially change the law. Freedom requires participation, which in our country usually requires at least a base level of education. Otherwise, you are just going along with what others impose upon you and your say is silenced.

• Just for the record - SOCIALISM is defined as follows: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Services society has agreed to pay for so we can use them and share the cost, like roads or fire departments, are not socialism. They are the result of participating in a community, which has zero difference from community-assisted barn raising or volunteering to trade harvest help a hundred years ago. I'm convinced that some of these folks who think in a selfish and short sighted way about education, health services, etc. must have had a seriously sub-par education. All the more reason to improve our schools. 

Here's the thing - education is one of the essential areas where anyone not in the 1% of wealth can be kept under control by that same 1%. If you are uneducated (by choice or by lack of resource availability) you are easy to keep down because you're too busy trying to survive on low wages, bad benefits (or none, including health insurance), and all the downstream ramifications. Education is a basic stepping stone to an fairer and more equal society where the majority of folks have at least a SHOT at that elusive "something better" this country is founded on. 

An uneducated populace allows propaganda and fear to rule their lives, and we get shit like the Inquisition. WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT ANOTHER INQUISITION?

The tricky part of society's services that offer a CHANCE at more equality is that nothing is guaranteed. Just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean everyone takes it, and if we're all honest luck does have some say in success, but the simple availability of basic education is one of the services differentiating a successful functioning society and serfdom. 

The kicker, the lesson so many seem to forget after 9th grade civics, is if you are going to benefit from society you are also responsible to it. If you participate in life, you are responsible for making the environment in which you live the way it is (good or bad). I think people who recognize this responsibility make some effort to make things better, because bitching and complaining is a downward spiral. It doesn't have to be a grand gesture or a full time job: it can be as simple as recognizing that only shitty selfish assholes take without ever giving back and bitch about things like taxes for the roads they use, the emergency services they might need, the medicare they inevitably complained about paying into but then use at retirement (like my neighbor), or the free education that benefits all of us (even those who can't afford private school) just by being available. 

It can be as simple as voting: exercising the right and responsibility to participate in decisions that affect your environment. 

I want the environment I live in to be full of educated people who make decisions based on something more substantial than propaganda. I think those who do the teaching need to be excellently educated themselves, and compensated well for their particular skill set (good teachers are a combination of motivator, multi-subject expert, public speaker, counselor, cat-wrangler, and magician...I decidedly do NOT have that particular set of skills). 

So yeah, I'm good with a school levy that provides better education and better educators with well funded programs. AND pensions. Bring on the smart populace. 

End rant. 

The Time Feminism Forces Me to Defend a...Palin

So today my Facebook feed and news outlets have two rivaling headlines. 

First and most importantly, SCOTUS has effectively shut down all those idiots terrified that Mark and Steve's marriage, or Jane and Sally's, will somehow threaten their own heterosexual homes. And to the national endorsement of equality for people who want to marry, I say YAY it's about fucking time. 

Second, and somewhat more disturbing to me, is the news that Bristol Palin is knocked up again outside marriage. It's not that she's pregnant or that she's not married that bothers me: I could not possibly care any LESS about her sex life or the products thereof. It's the really horrifying hypocrisy I'm seeing by "feminists": a sort of disgusting glee in seeing the poster child for abstinence education brought low by her own sexuality. 

REALLY PEOPLE? 

Let's set aside for a moment the pure nasty and gross behavior involved in smugly shaming a public figure for something that some consider a mistake (I say some because hello, not everyone considers pregnancy a mistake in or out of a legally bound relationship). 

Let me also be clear that I find Sarah Palin utterly disgusting for her politics, and I think abstinence education one of the worst disservices conservative politicians have forced upon teens.  Those are both entirely different posts. 

I pretty firmly believe if you call yourself feminist you don't get to judge another woman's sexuality, PERIOD. 

That means no slut shaming. EVER. 

That means no side-eye about women who have multiple partners, women who have children on their own, women who are completely asexual, women who are in a traditional marriage, women who buy toys, women who take birth control, women who ARE IN CHARGE OF THEIR OWN SEX ORGANS.

No subtle or overt blaming the victim of a sexual crime (she was drunk/smoking pot/on X/dressed like a whore) because deep down you're relieved that it didn't happen to you. 

No moral high-horse "we must SAVE them" attitude about anyone who voluntarily uses their body for money: that includes any sort of modeling, escorts, prostitution, dancing of any kind, porn, etc. (obviously, this point is barring underage or forced/trafficking crimes: I said voluntarily on purpose).  

And no snarky smug "she got what she deserved" judging of an adult woman in her mid-20's who gets pregnant outside marriage. Ugh. 

First, by all accounts I've been able to find, Bristol Palin was paid to do abstinence speaking from the perspective of having been a teen-mom. I don't agree with the abstinence only message in any way, but I can certainly see how that message might be something a 17 year old who'd gotten pregnant by mistake would be willing to speak about. I may not like her choice in message, but I appreciate her willingness to WORK in some way, and I don't judge her choice in which to do so. 

Second, this is not a teenager. Yes, she publicly took an "abstinence pledge" in 2009 and really, it's none of my business whether she stuck to it or not before this. Honestly, I don't care: her bedroom is her business, and she's certainly not the first conservative politician/minister/"moral" public figure to be "caught" living a different life in private than she does publicly. But hey, I know I haven't grown with experience since I was a teen: have you? In fact, I think if you polled a handful of people on the street most would assume a 24 year old woman is sexually active in this day and age: it's not that fucking weird that birth control failed and she got pregnant again. It's pretty likely that because of the pledge she took her abstinence only speaking engagements are over, so isn't that sort of a self-fulfilling unemployment arena? 

I guess I just don't really see any benefit (to me or anyone else) in jumping on a bandwagon of "neener neener you aren't perfect" nastiness just because I don't agree with her politics.  

Third, for those conservatives who insist that a woman's sex organs MUST be owned by a man through marriage contract before creating life, SHE WAS FUCKING ENGAGED, for Gods' sake. Other than the really uber-conservative sects, does anyone really expect an engaged couple to be abstinent? 

As an aside, boy you babies-in-marriage-only types really are going to have issues if male ownership of uterii is the only proper way to have a family, because I'm pretty sure SCOTUS just tossed that shit right out the window...now that it's finally legal for two uterii or two penii to be married without the opposite sex involved at all. And that's just awesome. 

What's horrifying about being caught here is the same people who rail against conservative/abstinence education are the ones crowing about the public shaming of a woman's sex life and her "fall from grace." Um, sorry, but sex and pregnancy don't equal a fall from grace: they pretty much just equal an addition to her family and most likely a career change in her case. So what? At what point do we as a society stop judging mothers by the circumstances of their pregnancy like we have any right to moralize their bodies and choices? 

For the record, I'm thoroughly grossed out that I'm in a position to defend a Palin, but I don't live her life, and I refuse to judge any woman's sexual choices. I suppose as a thought experiment it's good to test the boundaries of my insistence on non-judgement, but ultimately this whole news blitz and social media ishiness just put a bad taste in my mouth. 

On a Friday. 

I'm not impressed. 

Intolerable Intolerance and My Unfollow

This is an overly-long post that is decidedly unfunny. I needed a venting space (within the rules of this blog) to "think-out-loud" a few things. I get it if you'd rather not get bogged by serious shit: feel free to come back tomorrow when I'm back to normal smartass fun.

Tonight, I left behind a person I used to know, because said person's beliefs have become so blatantly intolerant and judgmental I simply can't see myself interacting anymore. I haven't blocked or drastically called public attention to that person: I simply unfollowed from all social media and backed away. It was not the first time this happened recently.

For the most part, I've remained out of the tolerance/intolerance debate flying about on my social media pages. Maybe that's because touchy subjects are, in my experience, more easily understood by either party when the aftereffects of a hateful comment are immediately visible on someone's face. Interestingly, there appears to be a misconception of what the word "intolerance" actually means. People who appear to wish to exclude others from their public universe (and therefore SHARED universe) often accuse "liberals" of "intolerance" of "conservative" views. Let's review those terms, shall we?

Per Dictionary.com:

Tolerance (as pertains to ideas, not physical limits):
1) a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, beliefs, practices, racial or ethnic origins, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2) a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own. 
3) interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Intolerance (again, excluding definitions regarding physical limits):
1) lack of tolerance; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own. 
2) unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect persons of a different social group, especially members of a minority group.

Now, I have difficulty accepting the definition of a word that begins with "lack of" the definition of the opposite, but it's dictionary.com, not the Oxford English.

We ALL have personal things which we cannot or will not tolerate.  I've seen examples of gross intolerance from all sides of the health care debates, politics, marriage equality, gender equality, economic equality...: the moment the argument becomes any variation of "if you aren't with us, you're against us" there is no longer tolerance. I find myself intolerant of laws created specifically to allow discrimination against any group of people in public space. I am emotionally vested in and intolerant of actions which seek to reduce my ability to participate in public life simply because I have a vagina. I have to think HARD about my reactions to some issues because of the emotional value they have for me...I am decidedly not immune.

But in all the debates a-ragin' about gay marriage, religious persecution, liberal and conservative social beliefs, health care, "isms"...people seem to be forgetting that these aren't cardboard cutouts they're attacking: they're other people. People who have as much right to a strong opinion as anyone else.

Personally, I may think you sound like a jackass if you say things like "Yoga is Satanic" or "Loving someone different from what MY (insert religion/culture/upbringing here) says is ok makes you evil," but hey, go ahead and believe in hate and exclusion if you want. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WISH. You can encourage others to agree with you. You can express your distaste for another's beliefs.

You are not, however, protected from the consequences of expressing those opinions in a public forum. Public space is public space, and is defined by the group. Society's norms are (contrary to popular belief) ever-changing. If you don't think so, please feel free to review the actual wording of the Constitution, noting that people who aren't white men (vagina people and black people are both specifically mentioned in amendments) weren't recognized as fully HUMAN (ie people who can vote, participate in society, work together to make this country what it is, HAVE A VOICE) until quite a long while after the document was written. The Constitution has changed over time. Society has changed over time. Public opinion changes over time. Sticking your neck out publicly to say you won't serve gays pizza and receiving social backlash doesn't make your situation "poor me, I'm persecuted for my beliefs." It makes you a person who discovered a large chunk of the public forum no longer supports your opinions.

Let me be clear: if you believe it's dangerously evil to practice yoga, have sex with your own gender, meditate, surf, study languages, watch horror movies, read smut, travel and experience other cultures...well...you certainly get to opt out of any of those activities. You just don't have the right to try to force ME to opt out. And you certainly don't get to pull the "I'm trying to save you from the horrors of hell in the afterlife" argument. That presumes sure factual (provable) knowledge of said hell and afterlife...and I'd have to challenge the presumption with demand of proof before I'd take that argument at any value.

To my mind, tolerance is the acceptance that there is no one way to any truth, but many, and I think everyone is welcome to theirs.  Intolerance is attempting to force someone else to YOUR view of the truth. And truth is not the same as fact...it's malleable and sometimes squishy, and that seems to terrify some people.

I think it's sort of fascinating how people either grow more repressed, restrained, hidebound, intolerant with age OR more tolerant, accepting, inclusive, and free. What's really interesting is that I seem to be reaching an age when people in my loosely-defined generational group are showing inclinations one way or the other, like plum-bobs swinging on a pendulum. I have yet to actually unfriend/block someone from my social media for increasing fundamentalism or intolerance. I have and will continue to remove them from my news feeds, if necessary...because if I can't have a rational discussion about why I disagree and only receive fundamentalist responses, I see no reason to engage at all. But you never know when something will change, and my door is still open if adult conversation is possible down the road.

I'm starting to think Someone in the universe is laughing their butt off at me, because this week has been a series of "practice what you preach, bitch" tests in tolerance and compassion, and what exactly I'm going to do when confronted with people unwilling to debate or discuss at all and would rather try to force me to their way of thinking.

Boy, I really do not do "forced" anything well at all.

Scully Explains Feminism in the BEST WAY.

I've been watching Netflix streamed crime shows lately, particularly ones from other countries. Oddly enough, it was in a serial killer show with Gillian Anderson (SCULLY!!) and Jaime Dornden (Once Upon a Time, 50 Shades) that has boiled down the best description of everyday sexism I've ever seen.

Gillian Anderson, a special police investigator, is being questioned by her boss (a man) for her (completely consensual) one night stand with another cop. She responds thusly:

"'Man fucks woman.'

Man: subject.

Fucks: verb.

Woman: OBJECT.

 

You don't have a problem with that: that's acceptable behavior.

 

'Woman fucks man.'

Woman: subject.

Man: OBJECT.

 

You have a problem with that.

 

It's YOUR problem."

Entertaining Empathy For a Change

I have a funny post pending for tomorrow. Today is something else I need to discuss. Today I am not funny. I read a lot of online news and such (it's slow at work right now), and the past few days I've been pretty disgusted. 

Do you know there was a fatal car crash in Houston today? A woman with two small boys, ages 4 and 6, hit a tree. She was killed, her boys were injured. While waiting for help to arrive, bystanders saw people STEALING THE GROCERIES FROM THE FRONT SEAT OF HER CAR. With a dead woman and injured children still in the car. I'm horrified at the thieves AND at the bystanders.

In Dallas yesterday, a car hit the median and flipped over. By the time the police arrived, they could do nothing but watch the car burn with two people inside and hope to god the passengers were dead already for mercy's sake. The officer who spoke about it was ashen-faced and teary-eyed. Bystanders videotaped the whole incident on their cell phones. No one attempted to help before the car started on fire.

I can't even begin to discuss the #YesAllWomen comments I've seen from both sides. I understand the anger, I empathize with many of the stories relayed through the movement. I'm disgusted by the troll commentary. I've lived similar situations and dealt with the ingrained sexism in our culture. But I also see that common sense is being set aside. I'm a realist who appreciates the idealism of social movements but understands the predators, criminals, and assholes out there will never allow an ideal state to occur. I'm a feminist who believes firmly in equality and respect between the sexes should be the way of the world, but who also knows how to (and regularly DO) adjust my behavior, dress, and attentiveness based on my situation and surroundings. That's not giving in to sexist society: that's consciously taking responsibility for my own safety, which I believe is a necessary outlook for women and men. I've seen too much backlash against men as a gender, which doesn't' allow for any attempt at mutual understanding. To the girl who bitchily tried to force a male ER nurse from his table at lunchtime yesterday, loudly proclaiming his wish to eat his lunch at the table he was at first was sexist and he should move "BECAUSE I'M A WOMAN AND I WANT IT," I wish I'd been there. I would've slapped you across the face, you entitled idiot. Women like you are just as sexist as the sexism you protest, and you aren't helping equality at fucking all.

Do you know what the #YesAllWomen movement has in common with the current uproar about the US trading Gitmo prisoners for a POW who may or may not have been a deserter? I assure you, there IS a commonality here.

COMPASSION. EMPATHY. SYMPATHY. RESPECT. Specifically, the utter LACK of compassion, empathy or sympathy displayed by individual and the "mob" right now.

This is more than a common courtesy issue: this is a significant public inability or refusal to bother thinking, even for a single instant, how the person being attacked might feel.

Yes, that absolutely applies to both #YesAllWomen and the backlash against it. It also applies to the fight women face in places like Afghanistan and India where the threat of attack, rape, and death is a very real and constant thing. It applies in places like Saudi Arabia where women are legally considered children. It applies in the Sudan where men and women can be killed for being the wrong religion. It applies in Uganda where a gay couple can be murdered legally for who they love. Anytime a society sees a group of people as sub-human, property, or less-than-equal in any way that society gives permission to cruelty. Period.

So what about this POW all over the news? I saw today President Obama will not apologize for bringing him home. Good. He shouldn't. He did the right thing. I don't give a hoot whether you voted for President Obama or not: the man enforced a basic Military value, a basic American value even, in bringing home a soldier languishing for FIVE YEARS in terrorist custody.

And yet, that man's hometown has been attacked by an incensed mob for planning a welcome-home party. A welcome home party the town has held annually since the Sergeant was captured as a "bring him home" party, which is now cancelled. That man's parents have been attacked in the media, called terrorist sympathizers, called traitors and worse. Why?  Because the dad said he wouldn't shave his beard until his son was home. Because his dad tried through Twitter to get the Taliban to release his son. Because they loved their son, who was held against his will by deadly people in a situation that could result in long-term torture or his death. What parent wouldn't fight to get their kid back?

I don't give a flying fuck whether that kid was attempting to desert or just out for a pee when he got captured. I don't know how he was captured. I don't know what was going on in his unit or during his tour. Experts are currently battling it out publicly whether he "deserved" to come home and if he's responsible for other soldiers' deaths. That's a military matter for the military court to determine: NOT the court of armchair quarterbacks squawking over each other for ratings and political clout. It's really so disheartening and disgusting. I didn't live through five years of captivity by the enemy. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WENT THROUGH. Ultimately, the media is so intent on demonizing this man and his family they've utterly lost the point of the whole situation. Criminal or not, he belongs in his home country, even if that's for review of his former actions. It's up to his military to determine wrongdoing and mete out punishment or not: that has no bearing on whether a US soldier should be left to rot in a POW prison. Period.

And you know what, Fox News Media people and other trolls? It's ok to let those parents celebrate the fact that their son is alive and back on US soil. It's ok for them to be happy his ordeal at the hands of the enemy is over. It's ok for them to celebrate their son is alive. And if it's discovered later that he should serve time for desertion or anything else, at least he's back in the US.

I firmly believe if you want to follow the "be the change you want to see in the world" you are responsible for fostering the improvements. Call it paying something forward. Call it protecting someone from bullying, or calling out someone (respectfully) on their shitty behavior when it happens and saying that's not acceptable. I'm a huge introvert. I avoid people often and generally prefer not to be bothered. If I'm able to think about what it might be like in someone else's shoes and have basic respect for people as human beings, it's not that goddamned difficult.

Will it backfire on you sometimes? Absofuckinglutely. Does that matter? Not even a little bit. What if that one moment of kindness stops someone from killing themselves that day? What if it stops a kid from feeling alone and rejected?

Will kindness and compassion stop homicidal rampages, or rapes, or child killers or molestations? No. As a realist, of course I know it won't. There will always be evil and suffering in the world: nature is balance, and that means there's good AND bad out there. But ineffectual mob attacks, online and in-person bullying, unharnessed lashing-out anger, and selfish indifference to those around you only perpetuates the bad, and that is creating negative change in your surroundings.

Nothing improves a relationship, a community, any group of people faster than kindness and respect. Period.

I challenge you to do a single act of kindness for someone today. I don't care if it's buying the person's coffee behind you in the Starbucks drive through or mowing a neighbor's lawn. I don't care if it's reaching out to a friend to say hello and that you miss them. I don't care if it's cleaning the house so your spouse or parent doesn't have to. Small acts of kindness add up and are easily repeated. If we're going to spread an emotion like a virus the way trolls and media spread nastiness, make it an effort to spread compassion and respect.

Compassion. Empathy. Sympathy. All definitions from www.dictionary.com.

com·pas·sion

/kəmˈpæʃən/ Show Spelled [kuhm-pash-uhn]   

noun

1. a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

em·pa·thy

/ˈɛmpəθi/ Show Spelled [em-puh-thee]   

noun

1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

sym·pa·thy

/ˈsɪmpəθi/ Show Spelled [sim-puh-thee]  

1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.

2. the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.

3. the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration.

Why Texas Matters, and Why I Support Wendy Davis (from MN)

I don't usually get all political-like on this blog. I do pay attention to politics, though, and I pay attention to the constant erosion of rights that's been happening in this country. It's pretty horrifying, really. And as a woman I've been following the Texas debates over the ridiculously restrictive abortion bill pretty closely, because it's not just about Texas. Let's ignore the dirty and underhanded skirting of the rules and laws in Texas regarding parliamentary procedures, and focus only on the bill itself, shall we?

In fact, it's not about abortion, although the Republicans would REALLY like you to ignore that fact, because screaming "KILLING BABIES" gets them blind support for a bill that effectively enslaves a large population in their state to women's bodies. No, I'm not being dramatic: let's review.

First of all, the 20 week ban is a straw-man intended to get the pure reactive response of pro-lifers. I'd wager $100 that said reactions are by people who only saw the Fox News headlines and didn't bother to read the actual bill. According to the most recent CDC statistics (2008), 91.4% of reported abortions occurred prior to 13 weeks. 91.4%. That means 91.4% of the Texas bill banning abortions after 20 weeks has NOTHING to do with the abortions themselves. If you've listened to any of the testimony at all (it's live-streamed, by the way), you'd hear that most of the less-than-10% of women who have an abortion after they've made it halfway through their pregnancy do so for a medically necessary reasons.

Oh Conservative Texas Legislators: Do you REALLY think a woman who's carried life inside her for 20 weeks would arbitrarily end it? Do you REALLY think a woman should be forced to carry a stillborn corpse to term (which is exactly what would've happened for many of the women providing testimony)? More importantly, who exactly give you the right to judge another woman or family for THEIR choices in this life, and decide for another adult what's best for them and their family?

Are there outliers, women who truly use abortion as birth control? I'm sure there are. There are outliers on both sides. Outliers are OUTLIERS...but this bill focuses on them to distract people from the real issue.
The real issue here is HEALTHCARE for women, and male legislators attempting to control the less-privileged people in their state. Oh, you think I'm avoiding the KILLING BABIES issue? Let's review.

The Texas abortion bill will, in effect, close many of the affordable health care clinics in Texas. Is that an issue for the well off and/or wealthy women in the state? Nope: they can likely afford to travel to the few remaining clinics if they need to. So in practice, this bill removes not only abortion but family planning and birth control from a population of women unable to take time off of work or travel a few hundred miles to see a doctor.

This is in the wake of two major blows to women owning their own bodies and reproductive cycles: Planned Parenthood getting effectively kicked out of Texas via defunding, and abstinence-only sex education. BOTH of these resources educate women on how their body works and what can be done to prevent pregnancy.

What was the Senate's response when birth control was brought up in yesterday's debate? "Use condoms."

Hmm. Aren't condoms a MALE BIRTH CONTROL? So...what Texas Conservatives are really saying is: you're a slut if you have sex before marriage and deserve what you get, because we don't believe you have the right to control your own health care: it's up to the MAN (via a condom) to choose whether you get pregnant or now.

Birth control freed women from the patriarchal control of their bodies through pregnancy...and Conservative legislators in this country have been trying desperately to get the "little woman" back under control. Don't believe me? How many women were on the US Congress panels regarding birth control when Rush Limbaugh called a college student a whore for wanting access to the pill? Hmm.

Oh wait...sex education is abstinence only...so even using condoms isn't taught as a birth control option.

Now, let's remove the feminist piece of this and focus on the men. What happens when lower-income families are denied good sex education, access to birth control, and affordable/accessible health care (yes, that includes abortions)?

They have babies. Lots of babies. Why? Because human beings are wired to have sex, particularly when they're in love and in stable relationships. Oh, you thought this didn't apply to married couples? It does. The sex isn't stopping: conservatives can try all they like to stop human nature, but it's going to happen.

Women aren't the only population impacted by this bill: the men who love them, their children, their potential children and families are ALL impacted. And when a low-income family has more babies than they can afford as a family, what happens? They're trapped financially. How exactly does a bill that will close the doors to health-care facilities serving this population in particular NOT enslave that very population economically, and how exactly is that better for the children in these families?

Let me say again: this bill does not ban abortion: abortions under 20 weeks will still be legal in the state (and as you can see if you click the CDC link, 91.4% of abortions are done FAR earlier than 20 weeks). This bill is an attempt to control women's bodies, reproductive rights, and economic status by denying health care and birth control via making access so limited and expensive it's impossible to access it. 

Why is this important to me, a Minnesotan far removed from Texas (or North Carolina or Wisconsin or Ohio)? Well, Mark Rubio has said he intends to introduce a nearly identical bill in the US Senate. So yeah, this is important to me. Women (and the men with them) of any social status, economic status, or race shouldn't be slaves to their reproductive cycles. Education and family planning resources have been eroded for over a decade, and now the remaining health-facilities which provide those resources could be closed.

This is absolutely a big deal, and it's important for women AND men to stand up and say clearly: WOMEN CAN CONTROL THEIR OWN LIVES, BODIES, and HEALTH CARE.

Conservative legislators in this country (mostly male, but some females as well) feel they have the right to get between a woman's medical decisions with her doctor. Why? Because their religious beliefs tell them it's wrong. Never mind that your beliefs may not be mine. Never mind that EVERY major religion in the world has some variation of judgement being left to God.


I wasn't aware so many Conservatives' glass houses are stone-proof.

Updated: Feminism: No, Really

fem·i·nism/ˈfɛm əˌnɪz əm/  [fem-uh-niz-uh m]
noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3. feminine character.

Recently my friend Superbetsy blogged, in a wonderfully snarky way, about cosplay at various geeky conventions. A commenter took issue with the subject as "unfeminist" and irrationally attacked the post based on...well, stupid. Phenomenally, remarkably, blindly stupid. She went on and on about how basic female grooming (plucking eyebrows, shaving legs, wearing makeup, etc) only fed the patriarchal inequality in this country.

Fucking REALLY? You judgemental, inexperienced, self-righteous IDIOT.

Instead of standing together, "feminists" of this ilk attack any woman who enjoys being female...never mind that same female may make significantly more money than her spouse, volunteer at a shelter, and help other women build themselves up. "Feminists" like the commenter put the same "ist" into feminism that goes with "race," "sex," "age," or any other reason to exclude a group with bigotry.

All over the world, women are subjected to various sorts of domestic violence. Women are sold as sex slaves. Women are prevented from receiving education, medical care, dignity, and in many cases life.

• In India, a woman was gang raped to the extent her attackers RIPPED OUT PIECES OF HER INTESTINE. Yeah. That didn't make US news outlets, but that's why she's still in critical condition. She was on a supposedly safe bus. With her boyfriend.
• In Afghanistan, a pre-teen was shot by the Taliban for the horrific crime of her "dishonorable" desire to GET AN EDUCATION.
• In the United States:
• a college student daring to speak up for the right to control her own reproductive system is called a slut publicly by media and politicians in an attempt to shame her into silence.
• The same politicians try to say rape isn't real if a woman gets pregnant, that pregnancy can't happen if it was REALLY rape.
• A girlfriend and mother is killed by her cheating boyfriend for the uppity crime of saying he can't fuck other women and be with her. He then killed himself, and there are SHRINES of mourning for HIM. Because he was an NFL player...and a selfish murderer who deprived his daughter of her mother over a goddamn argument.

Yeah. Let's talk about what feminism really is, shall we?

Feminism isn't about whether or not wearing makeup, plucking your eyebrows, wearing high heels, trying to attract a member of the same or opposite sex makes you more or less a woman. It's about equality, and enjoying that I'm a woman doesn't change my belief that the sexes should be treated equally and women shouldn't have to face degradation, torture, and violence just for having a vagina. Feminism means if a woman chooses to fill a traditional role she has the right to do so, just as if a woman chooses to get an advanced education and become an entrepreneur she has the right to do that too.

I'm not concerned whether my looks, my choice in footwear, clothes or grooming feed a patriarchal society. I'm concerned about important things that will CHANGE society, like making safety, dignity, respect, equality, education, and opportunity available for women AND men.

Is it idealistic? Of course it is: that's a long road all over the world. But it instantly pisses me off to hear self-righteous bitches judge other women for their choices while there are so many out there that don't HAVE those choices.  Because the "ist" in feminist can all to easily forget that if equality is what we're after, men are equal to us, too.

Updated: in Italy, the Church says it's YOUR fault for your husband beating you. If you cooked/cleaned/wore differnt clothes and were totally dependent on your husband, he wouldn't beat you. Between this article and the Pope's recent assertions that people who "choose" to be gay are denying their humanity (thereby implying GLBT people are less human), I wonder if the Vatican isn't purposefully trying to alienate people. Italians, by the way, are livid over this "if you acted better he wouldn't beat you" crap.

Freedom isn't free.

This is not a funny post, and honestly, it shouldn't be. I posted a bit of this on facebook the other day, but a momentary rant made me really start thinking about what's going on in today's political climate. This will be my only post on politics in this season (unless, of course, I "misspoke" in which case a PR person will shrug and comment somewhere on my blog that I didn't mean what I said. Even though I do, indeed, mean it).

Know what happens when you give away your rights over and over to government entities for "protection"? YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS. Know why we have the first and second amendments? Because when the US was a colony we didn't have the right to protest or stand up for ourselves. That's what the founding fathers intended with the Bill of Rights, with the Constitution, and with the freedoms we TOOK for ourselves in this country.

I resent that the political party originally valuing personal responsibility, financial independence, and small government influence/interference has become a Christian Coalition front-man pushing EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE sorts of controls on US citizens. Guess what? Religion has no place in government, and it BURNS me that the same party that bitched and moaned about a Catholic taking office (Kennedy, hello) is the SAME party pushing for more and more religion-driven-morality laws in the current government. Yes, Republican uber-conservative-religious-fanatics, I'm talking to YOU.

I resent that the political party originally valuing civic duty, taking care of the less fortunate, and ensuring the welfare of many over the wealth of the few has become a fucking nanny party determined to erode common sense and ANY sense of responsibility in favor of taking away my personal rights, particularly the right I have to protect myself with a gun, if necessary. That's right, uber-liberal-do-gooder-busybodies: I'm talking to YOU.

What the hell happened to all the MODERATES? You know, the ones who have common sense and can agree with some basic principles on both sides?

Seriously, what happens when we give up our rights? We lose them, and it takes a goddamn revolution to get them back. I'm not interested in a revolution: in a war people suffer on all sides. I'm interested in the government pulling their heads out of their ASSES and making some sense, because right now the Right is alienating any female citizen who has ever been assaulted, victimized, harassed, or is terrified of someone else forcing her to make health decisions without her consent. The Left is alienating honorable men and women who feel strongly in their right and ability to protect their own lives and loved ones, and who understand that NO GOVERNMENT SHOULD EVER be in a position of absolute power over its citizens. Know why?

Absolute power corrupts. Absolutely. (Thanks, Spiderman!)

See what I mean? Democrats and Republicans are EXACTLY THE SAME. They both want to take all the personal control of our lives, (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, anyone??) our forefathers and -mothers fought and died to take back from a colonizing empire that held us hostage.

Ever since 9/11 we've been giving away our freedoms and our rights in the name of "safety" and "protecting life."

But freedom isn't safe: it never has been.

You want to give up your rights, fine. I think you're fucking stupid, but it's YOUR choice to do so. However, you don't get to give up mine for me in the name of "keeping me safe" or "for my own good" or because you want to control my body and my choices.

Government busybodies don't belong in my bedroom, in my gun cabinet, in my phone/email/facebook/twitter/etc, in my diary, in my bank accounts, my medical records and decisions, or in my marriage.

I value my freedom. I respect the men and women who, over CENTURIES, have given their lives for that freedom. I would like to see this election result in protecting our hard-won rights and freedoms, not either fanatical agenda.

Sigh. End rant.

Poking the Bear

I started a bit of a snark war on the Huffington Post yesterday. I read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-hannah-grufferman/mommy-wars_b_1584446.html and saw a comment from a fool basically saying women need to stay home and make babies because that's the way it's always been.

Well, the historian in me couldn't take THAT, so I had to respond to the jackass's comment. As of this morning I've gotten FOUR replies from him, all in a very condescending, chauvinistic tone. I'm pretty amused: sometimes it's worth the effort to poke at insecure bullies just to see what happens. Snort.

I'm debating responding to his response, but since he essentially outed himself as a fool I don't think it's necessarily worth the effort. Therefore, I'm blogging about it instead.

UPDATE:

Yeah. I couldn't keep my mouth shut, so I DID end up responding. Sigh. Smart isn't always my strong suit, I guess, but sexist intimidation is so irritating.

Sigh.

As a follow up to a previous post, "Honor" requires MARRYING YOUR RAPIST in Afghanistan. And despite international outcry for her treatment, the victim is seriously considering doing so to "save the family name."

I'm not judging her: I'm judging her FAMILY. First, a family member rapes her and SHE'S sentenced to jail. For what exactly? For "sex outside marriage" even though she had no choice in the matter. Now she's being violated again: family is supposed to protect you, not force you to marry someone who assulted you for the good of the family's name. What the hell does their NAME have to do with any of this? She endured a horrific ordeal at the hands of someone who should've been trustworthy, and was failed by her kin and country over and over.

I wish this woman could find the courage to tell them all to fuck off and leave the country: at this point Amnesty International or another refugee service could get her out. Unfortunately as is the case with so many women brought up under oppressive social mores and abusive conditions, she'll likely stay and raise her daughter in the same culture that forces her to marry a man who raped her.

In my head, I know that this is a cultural practice that has gone on in many societies for centuries all over the world.

In my heart, I'm so utterly discouraged and saddened by the calculated subjugation of half the human race simply because "it's always been that way." I'll never understand what the hell is so terrifying to these abusive, ignorant, idiots about respecting the equality of women.

Oh Don't You Worry Your Pretty Little Head, Honey

This morning I feel like I've been sucked into a Twilight Zone alternate universe, and it's a bad, bad version..

The democratic President whom I have supported has taken away a major female right to privacy and medicine. Teenage girls can now overdose on asprin or cold medicine just like normal, but they can't get the morning after pill because it could be dangerous if taken improperly. Huh. So can asprin and cold medicine. Even more horrifying was the President's argument: he has two girls of his own. So...your children (neither of whom are 15-18 years old) and what they understand about medicine as 10 and 12 year olds decided for you whether a young woman can read directions on a medication box? But teenagers of both sexes can still buy condoms and other OTC medications with no problem? Why do you not see the sexist, unfair, ridiculous issue here??

Saudi Arabia BEHEADED A WOMAN FOR WITCHCRAFT yesterday. Sorcery and witchcraft aren't even ON THE BOOKS in Saudi Arabia as crimes. She was beheaded for what exactly? Did she drive? Was she encouraging other women to take care of themselves? Hmm.

Women in Afghanistan face acid attacks for what crime? For saying NO to a marriage proposal! In one recent case the women's entire family was disfigured with acid, including her father who supported her in refusing marriage to a warlord thug. He was beaten and forced to watch as his wife and daughters had acid poured on their faces. Disfigured doesn't even begin to cover the pain, horror, and utter ruination these women faced. Consider that in Afghanistan women are barely allowed to read (depending where they live) or work, and so are generally still dependent on finding a husband to care for them. Now consider that a disfigured woman there is nearly guaranteed to be thought unmarriageable. Not only did her attacker violate her horribly, he essentially ruined her chances at life in that culture.

Amongst all these attacks against the female in the world, our First Lady, theoretically the most powerful woman in the world (if you consider the US to be the most powerful, most free country in the world today)? She's wearing a certain designer's dress (big news!) and helped win the world jumping-jacks record. Michelle Obama had a chance to DO something while she was in office. She chose to be as opposite of Hillary Clinton as possible and embrace a backward "women are only concerned with food, fashion and children" image. I'm so very very disappointed.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama: it's your JOB to not only protect people's rights in this country, not take them away. Also, having two girls of your own should prompt you to set a better example to women and girls everywhere. World "superpowers": I'm ashamed of all of you for stepping back and allowing human rights abuses to happen to women and girls all over the world under the guise of "cultural normalcy" instead of standing up and telling oppressors and abusers to stop.

With shows like Pan Am, Mad Men, and Playboy Club taking over and 12 year old girls wearing "Juicy" across their asses, should I be surprised that feminism is a dirty word and equality is taking a giant leap backward? I suppose not. But should I stop being angry and trying to do something to change it? No way, and neither should any other feminist or humanist out there.

We aren't eye candy. We aren't punching bags. We aren't mindless, animated sex toys. We aren't cooks, maids, or laundresses. We are women: as entitled to respect and equality as men, and more than capable of getting out of the boxes we're shoved into.

Rights are RIGHTS.

BBC News Feature: Saudi Women

This article was buried in the Mid-East section of BBC.com today. It was hiding behind the various articles about rape as a weapon of war against women in Libya, sexual harassment and abuse against women in Egypt, etc etc etc.

It horrifies me that "etc" is applicable here.

Saudi Arabian women have been hidden away from the world for centuries, and blaming it on Islam is just stupid. Muhammed's wife owned her own business: there is NOTHING in Islam that says women are the slaves of men, and yet that's how they're treated, under the guise of "protection." Protection from what? Themselves, mostly, because the bottom line reasoning is that women can't be trusted, can't control themselves, and are vessels of temptation. Some countries came out of the backward thinking of the Middle Ages where Woman = Sin. Some clearly never grew up.

Women's rights abuses are a tribal community issue, not a religious one: the ancient tribes in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Africa are traditionally male-dominated and patrilineal. Hiding women away under burkas/abayas/scarves isn't mandated by the Koran, and female circumcision isn't a religious requirement; these are tribal social controls adopted into the local version of a larger religion. Decent men are being told by the people in charge that keeping women in the home, under the thumb of their husbands/fathers/brothers is really "for their own good" and that the honor of a family depends on a woman being virginal and quiet. Why? Because women can't  control ourselves and our bodies? Or because men can't be expected to control themselves when - GASP - a female is around? The implication that men are really just animals is just as offensive as the idea that women are there to serve and be protected.

One of the most disturbing quotes in the BBC article was a man who, uncomfortable, told the journalist "we give them their rights." I beg to differ, sir. You don't GIVE anyone their rights: by definition, RIGHTS are something they have anyway. Instead Saudi Arabia has, indeed, created the "largest women's prison" on this planet, and we as human beings in the entire world should be ashamed, outraged, and disgusted.

It's all a load of crap that excuses human rights abuses that should shock the world, but instead headlines of a Libyan woman being dragged away from journalists for reporting her rape get no response. Even a pretty white girl's assult in Egypt, which actually got some attention, is universally brushed off as "well she shouldn't have been there." An 11 year old in Texas is gang raped and the defense attorney says she asked for it. An 11 year old. All women have the right to be human. To control our own bodies, our own minds, our own lives.

The fear, shame, and discomfort that seems to stop the world from stepping in and saying enough needs to be purged, because the moment we blame an 11 year old girl for being raped and accept that in some parts of the world a woman is literally just a piece of silent property for a man to do anything he likes, we've lost our humanity.

On Fairytales

I wonder what would happen if little girls weren't raised on a constant diet of damsels-in-distress, of princesses who only become truly happy when they're finally married off and in a position (presumably) without any work? Look at Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty: NONE of them are happy until they've met Prince Charming in one of his many incarnations. Perhaps more disturbingly, none are happy until they're married to a man wealthy enough to 1) take care of them and 2) save them from any sort of labor.

Granted, cartoons have become a lot more progressive since then: look at Mulan, the girl who became a soldier...who again was happiest at the end when she'd found a man. Is society a reflection of the crap we watch, or is what we watch a reflection of society? Are women only truly happy when they're in a romantic relationship, or are we just bred to think that way? I think it's really interesting that statistically it's MEN who report being happier, more content, and are longer lived when they're married. So who perpetuates the idea that women are happy married: women, or the men who want to marry them?

I won't lie: I do wonder now and again what it would be like to be single, to be responsible for only my own feelings/goals/dreams/household/job etc. Who wouldn't think about it now and again? I don't generally feel guilty about it either: it's not a wish to be single, it's an idle wondering. After being through all ups and downs in my relationship over the past seven years (good GOD, seven years) I honestly think I'm happier overall being married than I would be single.

I was reading that blog again today: the one written by an young woman (maybe mid 20's) who's been cheating on her husband the entire time they've been married. With several different men. Reading it always leaves a really bad taste in my mouth, as I'm particularly offended by any type of betrayal, but most especially betrayal of the S.O. kind. It's just part of my makeup: honesty is #1 for me, even if honesty hurts I'd rather that than the lie. Anyway, while today is no different, I found myself wondering why an adulturous woman is called a homewrecker when an adulturous man isn't? Don't they wreck the respective home(s) together?

Is the Jezabel label another product of the fairy tales we teach little girls...that only bad women sleep with men outside of marriage? Only sluts and bitches fall in love with people they shouldn't? But why is behavior often percieved as a "weakness a wife should forgive" in a man percieved as "evil homewrecking slut" in a woman? And more interestingly, why when there's infidelity in the marriage does the spouse blame the OTHER person, not the offending spouse?

I don't have the answers, but I think this'll roll around in the brainpan for a little while. Maybe it's the product of American Puritanism. Maybe it's based on biological impulses to compete for genetic dominance. Maybe it's all a load of crap and people need to just rediscover honor.