Goodbye, '09, goodbye

This was a great year. Well, I think it was anyway. I accomplished quite a bit. I took the GRE and did quite well, I volunteered with some kick-ass folks at my favorite kick-ass non-profit, I started writing creatively, I applied to grad schools, I paid off my car loan, and on top of it all, I jumped out of an airplane.

This is the end of a decade, too. Everybody's talking about it, so I started thinking about where I was ten years ago and where I might be ten years from now. I feel like it would be completely pointless to say that I've grown a lot over the last decade. Ten years ago, I was 14, so if I hadn't grown up at least a little bit since then, then I would have some serious problems. When I read the diaries and journals I kept as a teenager, I'm embarrassed for myself. "Boys, boys, boys. Why don't boys like me? Boys, boys. Why am I not thin enough? Boys, boys. I don't want people to think I'm some kind of feminist. Boys, boys. What am I going to do with my life?"

(Interesting note here: A few weeks ago, I found one such journal I kept when I was 18. I flipped it open to a random page, and the first thing I landed on, I had written a really angsty entry that began with, "I don't think Dave likes me, and I don't think he ever will." Yes, that Dave.)

I guess that's pretty typical for a teenage girl, though. I'm proud of the person I've become, and I think 14-year-old Laura would be pretty impressed, too. In high school, I didn't have the faintest idea that I would be a reporter or even remotely interested in a media career. In high school, I thought I was going to be a veterinarian or a cop or a lawyer. Then I got a D in biology, and later decided that I really didn't want to wear a Kevlar vest to work or take the LSAT. Things change, or as some say, shit happens.

Already, I have some pretty lofty expectations for 2010. By the way, what are we calling it? "Two-thousand-ten" or "Twenty-ten"? I think I'm going to go with "Twenty-ten," personally.

New Year's resolutions are kinda cheesy, and I don't keep most of them anyway, but I've still made a list. I'd like to hear yours, too, but not if they're stupid or cliche ones, like "I want to lose weight" (unless you're like my good friend Matt Engelhardt and can write a witty-as-hell blog about it) or "I want to finally chase those rabid squirrels out of my attic crawlspace" (face it: those squirrels are never going anywhere).

My 2010 New Year's resolutions:

1. I will get better at chess.
2. I will learn to play poker.
3. I will set aside one night each week for myself, to read, write, and just veg out. In other words, I will make relaxation a priority.
4. I will not obsessively check my work email and voice mail from outside the office.
5. I will blog at least once a week.
6. I will not let my credit card balance exceed 20% of my limit (except, obviously, in case of emergencies).
7. I will save at least 10% of each paycheck. (Not really a very good resolution. I already do this, but let's just say I'll keep on doing it.)
8. I will write more fiction.
9. I will learn to cook at least one meal that doesn't suck. (NOTE: I am definitely not turning into some little domestic pet. It's just dawning on me that I may need to prepare my own food someday in the not-too-distant future. Besides, I'm not cooking for any children or menfolk, except maybe Dave... and only if he's nice to me.)
10. I will keep about 1/3 of these resolutions.

One final note: Happy New Year, everyone! Have fun and be safe!

Oh, NOW...

I really think the National Organization for Women should can it with this crap. It only reinforces the idea that feminism is just for upper-class white ladies. You know, I 'get' that a Bo-tax would disproportionately target middle-aged women, but at the same time, Botox is a luxury, not a necessity. And it's only become so popular because of our society's fucked-up ideals about female beauty and aging. By opposing the so-called Bo-tax, NOW is kind of saying it's OK for women to be judged on their physical appearance.

In my opinion, the real effort needs to be in expanding basic gynecological health services and prenatal care to all women (and for that matter, expanding basic healthcare to include EVERY American). Botox is a luxury, but a routine pap smear is a necessity that many women go without because they don't have health coverage.

Furthermore, NOW and other feminists need to push body acceptance. People age, and even in youth, we often don't live up to the unrealistic ideals of female beauty put forth by the media and advertisers. A woman's worth goes far beyond her physical appearance, and real feminists everywhere need to emphasize that. We may never be able to change these whacked ideals, but we can do our best to not be held slaves to these ideals, and to me, that means not giving a damn about the Bo-tax.

And one more thing... If you really want to avoid wrinkles in old age, you would do much better to stay out of the sun and slather on the SPF when you go outside. Protect yourself against skin cancer, too!

On feminism and stay-at-home motherhood.

The subject of feminism's compatibility with stay-at-home motherhood has always raised hackles among feminists. While some feminists would argue that stay-at-home motherhood is A-OK, others would say that you can't be both a feminist and a stay-at-home mother. (You don't really see so much of this conflict regarding the subject of stay-at-home fathers, however, and I think this is primarily because there are so many more women who forgo work outside the home than men who do so.)

My own opinions on the matter have been evolving for as long as I've considered myself a feminist (since about the age of 17). What I'm about to argue now is something I don't think I would have agreed with even a full year ago, but here goes...

Yes, I think you can be a feminist and a stay-at-home mother.

There are some caveats to this argument, however. To begin with, stay-at-home motherhood is not an inherently feminist lifestyle by itself, or at least, I don't consider it to be. This particular choice is status quo. Stay-at-home motherhood really doesn't do anything to advance gender equality in society, but that doesn't mean stay-at-home moms are altogether incapable of advancing gender equality in other ways.

A woman who chooses this lifestyle, I think, should also acknowledge the great deal of privilege that typically accompanies stay-at-home motherhood. There is a glaring class dichotomy within the subject of homemaking. For years and years, some women (specifically, upper-class white women) were told that this was their only option, that this was the only acceptable lifestyle they could choose. For other women (anybody in the poor or working class), this was not an option at all. For many Americans today, it still isn't an option. How many families do you know that can support themselves entirely on one income?

But having said that, I think a stay-at-home mom can be a feminist. Anyone who argues to the contrary should remember there are plenty of other ways to promote gender equality that don't necessarily have to involve working outside the home. A stay-at-home mom can be a feminist when she's raising her children to hold strong beliefs in gender equality, when she teaches her daughters that their worth is not based in their physical appearance or their ability to snag a man and when she teaches her sons that men and women are equal and that they should respect each other and pursue happy, healthy relationships with all people.

A feminist stay-at-home mom would ideally also emphasize to her children that her decision to be a homemaker is a matter of choice , that this lifestyle may be either unideal or unattainable for other women, and that her own choice is no more or less valid than the working mom who relies upon daycare providers to help juggle work and family.

Volunteer opportunities are also great. I think a stay-at-home mom who wants to advance feminist goals/gender equality should consider the various volunteer opportunities available to her. She can volunteer with battered women's shelters, Planned Parenthood, her local chapter of NOW, or any of a great number of other feminist organizations. Why not get the kids involved, too? After all, it's never too early to encourage the volunteer spirit.

Anybody who knows me well, or hell, has had a five-minute conversation with me, knows that I would likely never be caught dead as a stay-at-home mom. I don't really know if I want kids yet, but I do know that if I have them, I'll be a working mom. That will be my choice. Feminism isn't "all about choice," but choice is a major aspect of feminism. In the past, feminism was necessary to ensure women could have a choice about what to do with their lives. Hell, what am I talking about? "In the past"? It's still necessary! Though women have vastly more choices now than we did 100 or 50 years ago, we've still got a lot of work to do.

From my point of view, the feminist movement, however stratified and varied, should value every individual person's contribution to the advancement of gender equality, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant that contribution may be. We can afford to do no less than this.

However, I am still not convinced about the merits of pole-dancing as a feminist choice. :-P

Are you good without god?

My buddies in the Connecticut Valley Atheists recently erected this year's display on the Vernon town green. For those of you not in the know (or not living in North Central Connecticut), the CVA first began doing this in 2007. For years, the town had been displaying a creche on the town green around this time of the year. While the CVA really wanted no displays at all (either for or against religion) on town property ('cause it violates the establishment clause and all that fun stuff), the town decided to allow other groups to put displays up, as well, so that's when the atheist display went up.

There was quite an uproar about it, too. A lot of people felt the atheists were wrong to put up their display or felt they were attacking religion or religious folks. We had angry letters to the editor pouring in, angry comments left on local news web sites, you know the deal. I remember one letter writer criticizing atheism as a "philosophy of despair." (Despair? Hardly! I'm quite happy with my life, thank you very much!) I don't believe their display was ever vandalized, though.

Now, I know a lot of people tend to be of the opinion that "it's OK to not believe in God, but geez, why do you have to go and broadcast it all over the place??" Some people don't "get" why atheists put up displays and billboards and posters and things like that, or they view it as proselytizing, or as an attack on people of faith. I've often heard this opinion coming from other non-religious folks, the "don't rock the boat" types.

But in a society where we're constantly bombarded with religious images and viewpoints, where our political and military leaders consistently invoke God in speeches, where one president even said atheists should not be considered American citizens, it is so important to put an opposing point of view out there. Essentially (and this is just the way I see it), it's about making sure that your voice gets heard, too, amid the din of shouting and arguing. Honestly, why not have that viewpoint out there?

For me, this happened at a pretty pivotal point in my life. I was agnostic for years. Maybe about a year or so prior to CVA's first display, I had come to terms with the fact that I was an atheist. I was carving out this very crucial part of my identity, and seeing that display there on the Vernon town green reminded me that I wasn't alone and reaffirmed that it was absolutely OK to be upfront about my atheism.

"It's not the fall that hurts, it's when you hit the ground"

I usually post these things to both Facebook and Blogger, but for some reason, I didn't post this here yet. It's dated October 17, 2009. Seriously, the most exhilarating experience of my life. I highly recommend it. (Photo by Roger P. Major of the Connecticut Parachutists, Inc.)

From my Facebook post:

I had the most amazing experience of my life today. Although I've never really considered myself a thrill seeker, adrenaline junkie, or even much of a risk taker, today, I jumped out of an airplane 10,500 feet off the ground.

OK, so it was a tandem jump. So I really didn't need to remember to pull the cord, or, well, anything. And statistically speaking, a tandem jump is much safer than even crossing the street.

"Yeah, but you don't need to sign a waiver to cross the street," more than one pessimist responded. I didn't care. I still felt like I had to do it. My father did it. My mother did it. Technically, I already did it, as my mother was pregnant with me at least one time she jumped.

It was amazing. Have I said that already? Let me tell you about it.

We went through a few basics before we even got in the plane. Jim, my tandem instructor, told me that when we approached the door, I was to lean back, rest my head on his shoulder, hold onto my harness, and tuck my legs underneath the plane. Then, we would jump, he'd do a quick safety check (in the air!!) and tap me on the shoulder to let me know I could release my harness and put my hands out in the air.

But it all happened so quickly, I didn't even think about it. I'm not gonna lie: The first few seconds after we jumped out of the plane were the most terrifying of my life. Free fall. My body was traveling at about 120 mph. The best way to approximate this feeling is to stick your hand out the car window while you're driving on the highway. That's about a fraction of what you feel during this free fall.

I also experienced the strongest, most intense "HolyshitOhmygodIjustjumpe

doutofaplaneImgonnadie!!!" sensation I've ever had in my life. I even felt like I couldn't breathe. Jim explained later that this is a product of your body's "fight or flight" reaction. Your blood rushes to all your internal organs and you can have difficulty breathing. I gulped in air because I knew I wasn't underwater and theoretically could still breathe. Consequently, I look kind of like a goldfish in some of the pictures Roger the videographer snapped while we were in the air.

The free fall didn't last very long, though. Or it might have. I'm not really sure. I had pretty much no sense of time while I was doing this. Or space, or distance, or speed.

Once Jim deployed the parachute, I felt like everything just stopped. It was cold, and I was still about 5,000 feet off the ground, but it was actually quite peaceful and relaxing. We had a beautiful view of the New England scenery, and everything was just... quiet. Peaceful. Relaxing.

Jim did a few more safety checks and loosened my harness. (As much as loosening your harness mid-air sounds like a bad idea, Jim explained that it actually makes it easier for the jumper to breathe, and it makes landing easier.)

He steered the parachute over the field where we were to land and instructed me to stick my feet out straight in front of me. I slid to a stop, mostly on my ass. It's OK because I was wearing a jumpsuit.

Once I landed, I couldn't stop giggling. Actually, I've been breaking out into giggle fits all day whenever I think about it, especially those first few seconds out of the plane. I immediately felt like I had to run everywhere. I had so much excess energy to burn off. Or maybe it was the adrenaline. I don't know.

The bottom line is that it was an incredible, exhilarating, life-affirming experience, and if you're thinking even just a little bit about going on a tandem jump, then you should absolutely do it. I highly, highly recommend it.

The end. :)

A brief note on feminism, MRAs, stay-at-home dads, and the military

I know I linked to these already, but if you didn't already see them, here are two very good articles that pretty much encapsulate my problems with what are commonly known as men's rights activists.

I live in Connecticut, and I tend to surround myself with fairly liberal-minded people (at least, liberal-minded in relation to gender roles), so I don't usually get a negative reaction from someone when I identify myself as a feminist. But when I do receive a somewhat negative reaction, it tends to run along the lines of either "Feminists look down on stay-at-home dads. Would you marry a Mr. Mom?" or "Yeah, but women don't have to be drafted, so that's discrimination in favor of women. Shouldn't you support drafting women?"

Let me break it down for you, one at a time.

To the issue of stay-at-home dads. Would I marry a "Mr. Mom"? Um, why wouldn't I? I'll admit that right now I'm kind of on the fence about having kids. I think that's perfectly fine, given that I'm only 24 years old and nowhere near settled in life. But if I did want to have kids? Yes, I would absolutely want to have them with a man who's eager to take a more active role in parenting his children. Yes, I would absolutely be willing to be the "breadwinner," if we decided together that that's how we wanted to raise said hypothetical kids. I've had jobs since I was 15 years old. I'm used to paying my own way, and I don't expect to ever stop.

Along the same lines, I sometimes run into the expectation that as a feminist, I must be a hypocrite when it comes to splitting the check. I must still expect my boyfriend to buy me lots of shit and pay for me all the time. This assumption couldn't be further from the truth, and if you don't believe me, ask him yourself.

Now to the issue of the draft... For reasons unrelated to feminism, I believe that an all-volunteer military is really the best way to go, but if we did have to implement the draft? Yes, women should absolutely be drafted alongside men. Women have had a chance to prove themselves as capable and competent soldiers, and we have every reason to expect that women can serve their country through military service.

People also seem to have this idea in their heads where they automatically equate military service to fighting on the front lines, when that is not always the case. A lot of people seem to have a very narrow idea of what military service can entails, and while I won't profess to be an expert on the subject, at the very least, I realize that a person can serve in the military without ever seeing battle or having to kill someone.

This is all I wanted to touch on, for now anyway. :)

"It's 'Merry Christmas,' mothertrucker!"

With the onset of the last month of the year comes the onset of "The War on Christmas" season. Or did that begin on Black Friday? Or earlier? I don't keep track of these things, but it seems like Christmas shopping season starts earlier every year, so I must be about two weeks behind in reporting on the beginning of this year's "War on Christmas" season.

Whatever. The "War on Christmas" is bullshit anyway. Is there any quicker way to suck the fun out of something than by making that something into a political football? I don't think so.

Quite frankly, I think the people baw-ing every time a cashier wishes them "Happy Holidays" are hypocrites. "Holiday" is too generic, they complain."You're taking CHRIST out of Christmas!" they bleat.

Actually, if you want to get technical about it, there's very little "Christ" in Christmas already, at least the way we celebrate it here in America. Dust up on some history. Many of the symbols we associate with Christmas actually derive from non-Christian pagan traditions predating the birth of Jesus Christ. For example, mistletoe, yule logs, holly wreaths, even the beloved Christmas tree are all non-Christian in origin. Early Christians incorporated many pagan symbols into their own holiday to make Christianity more palatable to pagans (and thus, win over more converts). There's a word for this practice, too: syncretism. And if you want to get really technical about it, astronomers actually believe the birth of Christ happened a lot closer to the summer than to Dec. 25.

So a "good Christian" who wants to "keep Christ in Christmas" should probably be celebrating the birth of their savior in June - and shouldn't get a Christmas tree.

And if you want to throw another monkey wrench into the equation here, the word "holiday" literally means "holy day," so Fox News aficionados should be happy when retailers acknowledge their upcoming winter gift-giving day as holy.

We should all realize by this point that the "War on Christmas" is kind of an imaginary phenomenon that conservative commentators use to stir up white, middle-class Christian rage around this time of the year. It's convenient. The American Family Association needs something to be mad about, and lord knows you can't be angry about gays in the military and women in the workforce year-round. You've got to mix it up a little! It also helps their case that Christians in America are oppressed. (Hint: You're using the wrong suffix.)

If you want proof the AFA is just a bunch of whiny little ninnies with nothing better to spend their time on, click here to read their latest press release condemning Gap's holiday ad campaign. Remember they initially got their panties in a twist because (they claimed) Gap left the word "Christmas" out of this year's ad campaign, when the clothing retailer, in fact, included it in a very in-your-face kind of way. The bottom line is the same anyway: "Happy Holidays! Rah, rah, rah! Buy our shit!"

As for me personally, well, this time of the year gets very stressful, and I do tend to turn into a bit of a Grinch. I'm just trying not to stress out too much and to just kick back and enjoy spending time with my friends and family. Gift giving can be fun if you don't go overboard, and everyone loves an excuse to eat, drink, and be merry. Plus, if Richard Dawkins can do Christmas, then I think I can feel pretty OK about doing Christmas as an atheist.

If you take the politics out of it, then it's kind of a neat cultural phenomenon. It's interesting to see the way we've combined various religious and cultural practices over several centuries to create this one big amalgamation of food, shopping, pine trees, and peppermint. And boy, do I love peppermint mocha lattes!

One more thing before I go, though: I will not hesitate to tease and heckle these "Merry Christmas" warriors. If you force pamphlets into my hands or chide me that "Jesus is the reason for the season," then I will probably get in your face and tell you I celebrate solstice or Festivus or that I worship the sun god or a can of Spam or something equally ridiculous. Just because it's fun to make them sputter.

Happy Holidays, friends! :)

"War on Christmas" season has officially begun!

The L.A. Times has an excellent piece on the American Family Association's recent call for Christians to boycott Gap. Their offense? Failing to mention the word "Christmas" in their holiday advertising. Except that they actually do mention Christmas, so maybe the real offense is mentioning Christmas in the same breath as Hannukah, Kwanzaa, and solstice.

But as Dan Neil points out, their injunction against Gap may not matter at all anyway.

If you look at the history of the organization's boycotts -- often involving punitive actions against companies that support gay rights -- you'll see that they have no commercial impact. Actually, these boycotts seem to be good for business: In the decade of the AFA's boycott against Disney, which ended in 2006, the world's largest entertainment conglomerate's revenue roughly doubled to $34 billion. Likewise for Ford, which just posted a billion-dollar profit in the third quarter of 2009.

Personally, I don't particularly care whether someone wants to wish me a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, or a Happy Kwanzaa. Whatever. Do what you want, but don't bleat on about how a cashier wishing you "Happy Holidays" is "taking the Christ out of Christmas," especially if you're indulging in the consumerist pseudo-holiday madness that is known as Black Friday. After all, nothing says "Happy Birthday, Jesus!" like two soccer moms assailing each other with their shopping carts to get the last $40 mechanical hamster.

On another note, I did go out this morning, on Black Friday. Not because I wanted to, but because I was assigned the duty of interviewing shoppers for our annual Black Friday shopping story. The chore was not as horrible as I imagined it to be, although I parked at the mall and hoofed it to Wal-Mart and Best Buy. My soaking wet shoes and socks are now parked on top of my desk in the newsroom. I just hope I don't forget to bring them home with me.

I am terrible at updating this blog on a regular basis. Please forgive me, Internets.

Coming out swinging on a Monday morning

OK, so it's not really morning anymore, but I started writing this earlier today, so cut me some slack.

I've wanted to make an abortion post for a while now, but haven't quite found the energy. Arguing about this subject, especially, can take quite a bit out of you, but there are two items in the news I've wanted to address lately.

CNN recently reported a dramatic drop in support for abortion rights, but I'm not terribly concerned about it. Why? First of all, I want to know: how many people participated in this poll? And what was the demographic makeup of the respondents? Also, where did they get this sample? Furthermore, I would like to know exactly how they worded these questions because the wording of a question can make a big difference in the answer you get.

I would also like to point out that people who simply identify as "pro-life" aren't necessarily likely to support all-out criminalization of abortion. I've encountered plenty of people who will say something along the lines of, "Well, I'm pro-life for myself, but I don't think it should be illegal." The number of people who actually support banning abortion under all circumstances is still pretty low. If I remember correctly, it's about 23 percent.

In my opinion, that "pro-life for myself, but it should still be legal" viewpoint is A-OK. It may not be consistent with the "pro-life" ethic, but I don't concern myself too much with that. I don't care what opinions people hold or what decisions they make for themselves. What's important to me is that abortion remain legal, under most circumstances, because the alternative is kind of scary.

And speaking of the alternative, MSNBC recently reported that almost half the abortions performed worldwide are unsafe, and furthermore, that most of those unsafe abortions are occurring in countries with the least access to contraceptives and abortion services.

File this under "Why I'm pro-choice."

A quick one today

Jill Stanek is bleating more nonsense about birth control again. Color me shocked.

The source she cites, the DailyFail, is dubious at best, so take it with a grain, no, scratch that, a bucket of salt. The article she discusses essentially says a recent study shows the birth control pill may have an effect on the type of man a woman finds attractive. The article then goes on to assert the popularity of stars like Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Will Smith, is likely proof of this.

From the source:

On days when women are not fertile, their tastes swing towards more feminine, boyish faces and more caring personalities, researchers have shown.

However, if women are taking the Pill they no longer have fertile days.

That means they no longer experience the hormonal changes that make them more attracted to masculine men and those with dissimilar genetic make-up.

Stanek characterizes men with caring personalities as "wimps" and "quiche eaters." Call me crazy, but I don't want some big, hulking Neanderthal to throw me over his shoulder and bring me back to his cave for a dinner of woolly mammoth steak. I'm a 21st century woman. I want a guy with a caring personality. I want a guy who has a good sense of humor and can hold an intelligent conversation. Why is it a bad thing to be attracted to men with caring personalities? Wouldn't those men be better fathers in the long run anyway? Also, what does quiche have to do with this? I didn't know food was supposed to be masculine or feminine.

Lesson learned, ladies: If you take the pill, not only will you be able to have as much sex as you want while simultaneously preventing unintended pregnancies, you'll also fall for nicer guys.

Have sex, get pregnant, get expelled

This had me seeing red. Essentially, a private Christian school in Arkansas is being sued by a student's mother because they expelled the girl for getting pregnant.

This is what the student's mother is alleging in the lawsuit:

Upon hearing rumors that the student was pregnant, the principal summoned her to his office and badgered her to 'fess up. When she wouldn't tell the principal, he called in a teacher, and when the student confided in the teacher, the teacher then turned around and told the principal. The student was expelled and then taken to a so-called "Crisis Pregnancy Center"* where the center's staff interviewed the girl, administered a pregnancy test, and then disseminated the information to school employees.

All without calling her parents.

This entire scenario is flat-out wrong, but before I get into why, let's look at some of the points that might count in the school's favor.

I've been going back and forth with a conservative friend about this story for a few days now. He contends that it is a Christian school, that the student knew the rules when she enrolled, and that she broke them anyway. He further argues, "What's the point of having rules if you aren't going to enforce them?" and worries that failure to enforce this policy will encourage more teen pregnancies in the school system.

As a staunchly pro-choice feminist, I'll admit to having wrung my hands about the matter of teen pregnancy. I've often asked myself, Where is the line between supporting the young women who want to have their babies and carry on with life, and blatantly encouraging this behavior? I can't help but wonder if such hand-wringing is totally unfounded and paranoid, though. And even if I have the slightest inkling that measures meant to help teen moms finish school (day care centers in public high schools, for example) might unwittingly encourage more teen pregnancies, I have to imagine that whatever scant encouragement that offers is greatly outweighed by the benefits of helping teenage moms finish up high school. Isn't it more important to worry about the young women whose chances at education are already diminished than to worry whether helping those girls sets a bad example for others?

So the hand-wringing is unnecessary, I admit it. Now back to the matter at hand... Let me say this: The policy of expelling pregnant students because having them around encourages "sexual immorality" is outdated, sexist, and just plain stupid.

It's outdated because it relies on the old-fashioned notion that punishing teens for getting pregnant will actually discourage them from having sex. It's that same line of thinking that says we shouldn't have a vaccine that could prevent cervical cancer because women and girls should be punished for having pre-marital sex with a disease.

It's sexist because this policy disproportionately affects the girls and young women involved. Male students are seldom ever punished for their sexual indiscretions, and again, that invokes antiquated ideas about female sexuality and what the consequences for that should be. (Which, in my mind, raises the question, "Why does sexuality have to have consequences?")

And finally, it's stupid because it brazenly discourages teen moms from completing their high school educations. Although the situation of teen mothers has improved dramatically over the last few decades, the fact still remains that only about a third of teen mothers receive their high school diploma, and teen moms are even less likely to go onto higher education. (Only about 1.5% of teen moms earn a college degree by age 30.) Furthermore, about 80 percent of teen moms wind up on welfare. And this doesn't bode well for their babies, either. The sons of teen moms are approximately 13% more likely to end up in jail, and their daughters are 22% more likely to end up teen mothers themselves.**

You know what can greatly improve a teen mom's prospects for a long, healthy, successful life? An education!! That's a no-brainer! And as a slight aside, it's real education about sex, sexuality, STIs, and contraceptives, that will be the real solution to the problem of teen pregnancy. Education, not keeping them in the dark with this abstinence-only nonsense.

I have to add another point, too, about the sheer hypocrisy of Christian schools whose policy is to expel pregnant students. I did a little bit of digging and found the school in question is affiliated with Trinity Baptist Church in Texarkana, Ark. I searched their website, but the closest thing I could find to a statement on abortion was this: "Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord." They could theoretically be pro-choice, but I don't think it's likely that a school with such a conservative policy on teen sex would simultaneously hold a liberal point of view on abortion.

Having said that, I wonder if those school officials, if they identify themselves as pro-life, recognize that this policy quite likely has the effect of encouraging pregnant students to seek abortions or to hide their pregnancies for as long as they can, thereby delaying very necessary prenatal care. Why exhort young women to "choose life" when you aren't going to support them in that choice??

I am pro-choice, and while I would not encourage the choice to have a child at such a young age, I think these young women should be supported nonetheless. They've made their choice, so don't throw them out on their asses.



*For those of you not in the know, Crisis Pregnancy Centers are essentially fake or quasi- medical clinics often run by pro-life organizations with the intent of discouraging abortions. While some CPCs are upfront about their bias, others may masquerade under the more generic moniker of "women's clinic." Often, CPCs will brand themselves as "abortion alternatives" and after luring in confused young women with a free pregnancy test, will foist misleading, anti-choice propaganda on them. Having said that, I'm willing to give a few of them the benefit of the doubt, but that's another discussion for another day.

**Numbers taken from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.

Good on Illinois!

While I'm sure many of my pro-life friends would disagree, I'm inclined to think this was a very good decision. I certainly can't blame the Illinois DMV for wanting to keep abortion politics off of license plates. Besides, if you feel that strongly about the issue, then you're free to cover your car in bumper stickers.*


*I think bumper stickers are obnoxious, by the way. All bumper stickers - not just the ones I happen to disagree with. When I see a car's ass end covered in bumper stickers, I feel the urge to pull up closer to the car and read them all. And they're usually not worth reading. Additionally, I like to keep politics off my vehicle of choice.

Well, this is certainly interesting...

What have I been saying all along, fellas? It pays to date smart women, apparently!

Glenn Beck as a comic character

As of late, I've taken an interest in comedy writing - partly to "broaden my horizons," so to speak, and partly to improve my overall abilities as a writer. Dave was kind enough to loan me an excellent book for just such a purpose, John Vorhaus' The Comic Toolbox: How To Be Funny Even If You're Not. I just finished up Chapter 4, Comic Characters, and I think Fox News pundit/scaremonger Glenn Beck almost perfectly fits Vorhaus' rubric for creating a solid comic character.

First, a comic character must have comic perspective. Vorhaus writes, "The comic perspective is the character's unique way of looking at his world, which differs in a clear and substantial way from the 'normal' world view." Can there be any doubt that Glenn Beck possesses a strong comic perspective, that his perspective on the world is indeed warped?

In this case, Glenn Beck's comic perspective is his peculiar brand of off-the-wall paranoid quasi-libertarian-conservatism, and everything he sees or reads in the news gets filtered through this perspective. If Glenn Beck simply opposed President Obama’s policies or opinions, there would be nothing remarkable or comic about him. To give an example, Beck doesn’t oppose health care reform because he’s concerned about government spending. He actually thinks Obama wants to expand health care as a means of reparations. You know, for slavery. That’s an example of how Beck filters what’s happening out in the real world through his own unique comic perspective.

Vorhaus' second requirement for a good comic character is exaggeration. "The tool of exaggeration, then, simply takes a comic perspective and pushes and stretches and accelerates it until it's sufficiently far from our perspective that it starts to be funny," he explains.

Nobody does exaggeration like Glenn Beck. Beck isn't just conservative. The man lives in crazy, upside-down conserva-world. Up is down! Black is white! Left is right! Need an example? When Obama criticized that Cambridge police officer regarding the whole Henry Louis Gates fiasco (which is really another discussion by itself), well, he wasn’t just perhaps speaking a bit rashly. No, by Beck’s reasoning, Obama said that stuff because he’s a racist! He’s racist against white people! And he hates white culture! No, never mind that Obama is half-white himself and was raised by his white mother and white grandparents. And never mind that when asked by Katie Couric to define what he even meant by “white culture” (Could you have meant this, Glenn?), Beck hemmed and hawed and refused to even answer the question, but still defended his original point. No. The president is just racist. ‘Nuff said.

Third, a comic character must also have flaws. Oh, boy, does Mr. Beck have flaws. He’s paranoid, and he’s easily given to crazy delusions. Nowhere did he better illustrate this than in the episode when he went off on a rant about the "socialist art" in Rockefeller Square. (Also, the Rockefellers were progressives? Again, see the aforementioned criteria, and you'll better understand how this fits into my argument.)

Finally, Vorhaus writes, a comic character must have humanity. "We used flaws to drive a wedge between the character and the audience so that the audience could laugh. Now we use humanity to build a bridge between the character and the audience so the audience can care," Vorhaus says.

Sure, Glenn Beck has humanity. He obviously cares about his country very much. He's patriotic. And on top of that, he's sensitive. And emotional. We know that, however crazy and delusional he is, at least, he cares. And we know that he cares because why else would he throw an emotional fit on national television? Surely, he wouldn't humiliate himself on TV for fame, right? ... Right?

Taken altogether, we can see that Glenn Beck is a real, live, flesh-and-blood example of the perfect comic character. He possesses comic perspective, exaggeration, flaws, and humanity. Just like Michael Scott on The Office, or Jack Donaghy on 30 Rock. But the thing is, Glenn Beck isn’t a fictional character, and whether or not he actually believes half the crazy shit that comes out of his mouth, he at least appears to take himself very seriously. And so do his millions of viewers, although I like to believe that at least some of those viewers either take his bullshit with a grain of salt or they’re just high. Or they’re making a drinking game out of his TV show. (My liver hurts just thinking about that!)

Already this year, we’ve seen at least two incidents of right-wing domestic terrorism, in the actions of Scott Roeder and James von Brunn. It certainly wouldn’t be surprising if similar motivations were behind the recent killing of census worker Bill Sparkman, although to be fair, the investigation is still in full swing. I can’t say with any certainty whether any of those people followed Glenn Beck, or Bill O’Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or any of the other “They’re out to get us!” right-wing scaremongers. But I can say, with some degree of certainty, that things are changing in this country, and that’s resulting in a lot of anger, fear, and hatred, coming from, well, white guys who are viewing themselves as increasingly disenfranchised victims of the federal government.

As talking heads, Beck and his colleagues have some degree of control over the tenor of our political discourse. They should accept that and maybe think about toning down some of their more outlandish rhetoric. (Beck, remember, once joked on air about poisoning the Speaker of the House.) For years, conservatives have railed against Hollywood and television’s invidious influence on society. Sorry guys, but it’s too late to backtrack and tell us all that your own words have no impact on any unhinged listener’s violent actions.

And while I’ll concede that liberal talking heads say plenty of stupid things on their own (Janeane Garofalo, just shut up!), you’ll find very few, if any, actually advocating violence. (I personally can’t think of any myself, but I’m sure they’re out there.) On the other hand, it’s hard to think of a conservative talking head who hasn’t done so.

Dissent is great. Debate is fantastic. But we’re human beings, so we should be able to keep it civil, especially during a time of great difficulty for our country. Going on the radio or television and spewing your crazy conspiracy theories, telling your millions of viewers the government wants to pull the plug on grandma when you know damn well that isn’t true, is just irresponsible. Whether or not they mean it seriously, Glenn Beck and his associates often do us one worse when they actually advocate violence and chaos.

And there’s nothing funny about that.

Fair and balanced...

Like a seesaw with an elephant on one side and an Olsen twin on the other.

Why am I not the least bit surprised by this?

Yeah, OK, reporters are human, too. We can't help but have our own opinions about some things, but you don't let that get into your work. In other words, take off your "teabagger hat" when you put on your "reporter hat."

Just as an aside, do you think the Republicans have figured out what "teabagging" actually means yet?

Today the FBI emailed me!

I got an email today from somebody claiming to be from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Anti-Terrorist and International Fraud Division. Copied and pasted below...

Anti-Terrorist and International Fraud Division.
Federal Bureau Of Investigation.
Seattle, Washington.


ATTN: BENEFICIARY

This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigation with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you legally won the sum of $800,000..00 USD from a Lottery Company outside the United States of America. During our investigation we discovered that your e-mail won the money from an Online Balloting System and we have authorized this winning to be paid to you via a Certified Cashier's Check.

Normally, it will take up to 10 business days for an International Check to be cashed by your local bank. We have successfully notified this company on your behalf that funds are to be drawn from a registered bank within the United States Of America so as to enable you cash the check instantly without any delay, henceforth the stated amount of $800,000.00 USD has been deposited with Bank Of America.

We have completed this investigation and you are hereby approved to receive the winning prize as we have verified the entire transaction to be Safe and 100% risk free, due to the fact that the funds have been deposited at Bank Of America you will be required to settle the following bills directly to the Lottery Agent in-charge of this transaction whom is located in Lagos, Nigeria. According to our discoveries, you were required to pay for the following -

(1) Deposit Fee's ( Fee's paid by the company for the deposit into an American Bank which is - Bank Of America )

(2) Cashier's Check Conversion Fee ( Fee for converting the Wire Transfer payment into a Certified Cashier's Check )

The total amount for everything is $300.00 (Three Hundred-US Dollars). We have tried our possible best to indicate that this $300.00 should be deducted from your winning prize but we found out that the funds have already been deposited at Bank Of America and cannot be accessed by anyone apart from you the winner, therefore you will be required to pay the required fee's to the Agent in-charge of this transaction via Western Union Money Transfer Or Money Gram.

In order to proceed with this transaction, you will be required to contact the agent in-charge ( SAMUEL OLIVER ) via e-mail. Kindly look below to find appropriate contact information:

CONTACT AGENT NAME: SAMUEL OLIVER

E-MAIL ADDRESS: samuelovl@aol.com

You will be required to e-mail him with the following information:

FULL NAME:

ADDRESS:

CITY:

STATE:

ZIP CODE:

DIRECT CONTACT NUMBER:

You will also be required to request Western Union details on how to send the required $300.00 in order to immediately ship your prize of $800,000.00 USD via Certified Cashier's Check drawn from Bank Of America, also include the following transaction code in order for him to immediately identify this transaction : EA2948-910.

This letter will serve as proof that the Federal Bureau Of Investigation is authorizing you to pay the required $300.00 ONLY to Mr. SAMUEL OLIVER via information in which he shall send to you, if you do not receive your winning prize of $800,000.00 we shall be held responsible for the loss and this shall invite a penalty of $3,000 which will be made PAYABLE ONLY to you (The Winner).

Please find below an authorized signature which has been signed by the FBI Director- Robert Mueller, also below is the FBI NSB (National Security

FBI Director
Robert Mueller.

Authorized Signature

NSB SEAL ABOVE

NOTE: In order to ensure your check gets delivered to you ASAP, you are advised to immediately contact Mr. Samuel Oliver via contact information provided above and make the required payment of $300.00 to information in which he shall provide to you.

I almost kinda can't believe people fall for this stuff, except that I've seen it. When I worked at the bank, I remember one older fellow who had to close and reopen his accounts several times because he kept falling for those Australian lottery email scams. It was actually pretty sad.

Breaking down misogynist manure

Originally posted to Facebook on August 7, 2009:

I've been thinking a bit lately about what being a feminist means to me. A friend, perhaps unwittingly, drew my attention to this steaming load of horseshit, so I felt that maybe another note was in order.

Point the first: Kanazawa makes some fundamentally incorrect assumptions about feminism. The point of feminism is not to erase differences between men and women, or to deny that those differences exist. Rather, feminists work to ensure that people are not denied opportunities on the basis of gender. As Stacey put it: "Since YOUR basic assumption about feminism is wrong, you're wrong."

Plenty of feminists, myself included, enjoy getting dressed up now and again, putting on heels and a dress and maybe a little bit of lipstick. In fact, many feminists love, date, marry, fuck, and settle down with, men. The point of feminism isn't to hate men or to make Western society androgynous. Certainly, feminists believe that androgynous people should not be treated as freaks or forced to conform to specific gender roles they aren't comfortable with. The same goes for gay, bi, transgender, transsexual, or any other type of queer folks out there. And feminists do generally believe gender roles are largely socially constructed. (Until the early 20th century, little boys were often dressed in pink and little girls in blue. In some tribal societies, the men don face paint and fancy costumes to impress the women.)

So since Kanazawa starts off with some wholly inaccurate assumptions about feminism, it's hard to keep taking his piece seriously. Still, it's worth reading for this one little turd alone:

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don’t control these resources, because they don’t have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

In other words, "Well, sure, menfolk control the money, politics, and prestige, and everything... But it's you women who have the real power because you guys have tits!!"

Or something like that. Anyway, this "pretty girls have all the power!" crap might even be more annoying than the disenfranchised-upper-midd

le-class-white-Christian-man garbage we've been witnessing so much of since Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

In the first place, it's not true. If women really did exercise that much sway over men, don't you think we would have had more than two sorry, three female Supreme Court Justices by now? Don't you think women would hold at least half the seats in the Senate and the House? If women really held that much power over men solely by virtue of sex appeal, don't you think we would have had at least one female president? So basically, it's bullshit.

Secondly, even if it were true (which it isn't), telling women to be satisfied with less-than-equal status because they have control over men's penises almost seems a little bit like telling black people to quit whining about prejudice because they dominate professional basketball. Why on earth would anybody think that sexual attractiveness or "sexual power" of some sort is any substitute for real political, social, and economic equality? Is that the message we want to send young girls? "Don't worry about going to college, getting a job, getting ahead or anything like that. All you need to do is find a powerful man and use sex to manipulate him."

Seriously?? That's degrading to both sexes. And furthermore, this proves my point about why feminism is still very, very necessary. It's sexist to suggest that women assert power by sexually manipulating men, and it's sexist to assume that men are incapable of using their brains when faced with a pretty girl.

And thirdly, what about less than "reasonably (read: conventionally) attractive" women? What do they get in this imaginary, made-up world where women don't have rights but don't need them because pretty women can exercise sway over guys' dicks?

Furthermore, Kanazawa''s point about "happiness" entirely misses the mark. The point of feminism isn't to make women happy. The point of feminism, as I stated before, is to ensure that people are not denied opportunities on the basis of gender. What you do with those opportunities are your business. Your own happiness is your responsibility alone, and Kanazawa never actually cites any studies to prove that women today are less happy, and even if he did, anybody educated past the 10th grade should be able to understand that correlation does not mean causation. (If people - not women, but people - truly are less happy than they used to be, we might want to ask about things like employment, education, debt, the economy, our increasingly sedentary lifestyles, etc., before dumping the blame on feminism - a movement which, innocuously enough, asserts that women have inherent equal worth to men and should therefore be treated that way.)

In concluding, Kanazawa writes, "... the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny."

Don't worry. I fixed it for him: "... the culpability of modern feminism in making women steadily unhappy, because it is based on false assumptions about male and female human nature, is difficult to deny prove."

Damn straight, I'm a feminist! And guess what? I'm happy, too!

Some thoughts on religion, godlessness, and life in general

Originally posted to Facebook on July 18, 2009:

It occurred to me the other day that the first time I publicly admitted I was an atheist, I was about 16 years old. I was walking down the street in front of the post office in downtown Stafford when an older man accosted me, shoving pamphlets for his church at me. I put my hands up in a defensive posture.

"Oh, uh. No, thanks. I'm an atheist," I told him.

As I walked past him down the street, he shouted after me, "Jesus is real! He died for your sins!"

I just said, "OK," and continued walking.

Around that time, I was attending confirmation classes, and my teachers kept reiterating that confirmation "is a very important sacrament that's not to be taken lightly" and that it "means you're an adult in the eyes of the church." Before that point, I was, for all intents and purposes, an agnostic. I didn't think much about the existence of any deity, I didn't pray, I hated attending church, and I was already beginning to disagree with many of the Catholic church's positions regarding gender roles, sexuality, etc.

When my teachers said, "You have to take this seriously and make sure you really want to do this," I took that message to heart and told my dad that maybe I shouldn't be going through with all of this because maybe I was an atheist.

He told me, "Just do it. You'll regret it later if you don't."

I didn't really know what he meant by that at the time. In retrospect, maybe he was referring to my someday getting married in a church. Does anyone who has ever held more than a five-minute conversation with me actually think that is ever going to happen? (The church part, not the marriage part. I'll probably get married someday. Probably not before I turn 30.)

So I begrudgingly dragged my feet through with the whole thing, disagreeing with the church almost every step of the way, and feeling like an utter phony for participating in this ceremony that held absolutely no relevance to my own life.

I was an "adult in the eyes of the church" now? Fine. I was going to make the adult decision to stop going to church. I figured, Why subject myself to something that made me so miserable? (If only I had given up dieting and self-loathing with such ease!)

From there, I kind of bounced between atheism and agnosticism for a while. Atheism seemed too "extreme" to me at some points in my life, but a few years ago, I decided to just be honest with myself about it. And it's really not so extreme.

I do try to give religion a fair shake. I really, really do. But it's hard. I can't help but see organized religion as a largely invidious force that stunts real progress in society. Mind you, I said "organized religion" and not "religious folks." I have friends who pray and attend worship services and do some really good things for their community, and I applaud them for that.

I'll repeat that: I applaud them, the individuals, and not the church, for doing good deeds. I also know plenty of people who aren't religious at all and who give back to their communities. For example, the Connecticut Valley Atheists do quite a bit of good stuff, like raise money for cancer research and help out at battered women shelters.

With or without religion, good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. That's just human nature. I try not to get into the argument of "Does religion cause more good or harm in the world?" because I don't believe good and harm are quantifiable things that can be measured and calculated. (To be truthful, I lean towards the latter, but like I said, I try to give religion a fair shake, so I won't get into that discussion here.)

What I want is a fair shake from religious folks. And to be honest, most of the religious people I know really don't try to push their beliefs on me, and I thank them for that. Unfortunately, I know a fair number of people who think I should practice what they preach.

But what I probably hate most is the assumption that I must be miserable and that my life must be empty and meaningless because I don't believe in any kind of god. Nothing could be further from the truth! I've never looked back or wondered whether my life would be more meaningful if I had religion. I already know it wouldn't be.

I have an interesting and unique family, whom I love very much. I have fantastic friends who I'd bend over backwards for. I have a wonderful boyfriend, and we love and respect each other so much. I work a job that's never the same every day; it's often frustrating and stressful, but it's also rewarding and fulfilling.

So what, then, do I need religion for?

I can already see enough beauty and wonder and goodness in the world, without believing that it was created by any kind of divine power. True, I'm a little bit rudderless at the moment and don't know exactly what I want out of life, but hey, I'm 23. That's to be expected.

I call bullshit on anybody who claims to know the meaning of life or who claims to find that meaning in a book that's essentially older than dirt. And I find it especially interesting that human beings who have difficulty discerning the intentions of our Constitution's drafters would claim to know with near-absolute certainty the intentions of men who penned the Bible - a book that is, in my opinion, certainly much less relevant to our society than the Constitution.

But now I'm just being critical.

You pretty much have to be a terrible person to say this kind of thing.

I originally posted this to my Facebook account on May 16, 2009:

What follows is a quick little blog post that contains some fairly harsh, but also fairly appropriate, language in response to a horrible thing I heard this morning. In other words, you've been warned.

OK, I was on Welcome Crew duty this morning. I expect the usual barbs from the pro-forced-birthers hanging out on the sidewalk with their bloody fetus posters.

"Your mom chose life!" (Yes, she chose to have me. She is pro-choice, and I wouldn't have it any other way.)

"You're just like Hitler/Stalin/a child molester/a prostitute!" (Right. I'm just like all of those people. Logic: Use some.)

"I'll pray for you!!" (Um, no thanks. Please don't.)

But that's all standard fare. If they're not yelling at women or trying to force pamphlets and rosaries through car windows, then they're standing there and praying quietly. Whatever. I expect it. Really, I'm just there to be a friendly face to the patients coming in.

Today, shortly after getting out of my car, I heard something that really infuriated me. Now, just think to yourself: What might be the most dickish and insensitive thing you can say in a Connecticut college town right about now?

Try: "That Wesleyan girl got what was coming to her!"

... Yeah.

(In case you weren't aware, Johanna Justin-Jinich, the Wesleyan student who was stalked and gunned down a while working at her job in a bookstore recently, was a women's rights activist who volunteered at Planned Parenthood. I assume this is what that asshat was referring to.)

OK, I don't particularly care what your views on abortion are. That is a horrible thing to say. Period. We generally ignore the protesters - the same treatment you'd give a petulant little child. I didn't say anything to this dude, but if I could have?

"Go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty hammer!"