Can we use a little logic, please?

I fully understand that many people are uncomfortable with the whole issue that is abortion. There are deeply entrenched beliefs that cause tensions and emotions to run high, but I thought that we could all agree that access to contraception was a good thing. Obviously there are those that oppose sex before marriage, but I thought that almost everyone (yes, including Catholics when the rubber hit the road) thought that contraception was appropriate in a marriage if two individuals didn't want to have children.



Apparently, I was wrong. I wish that those who argue that we shouldn't use contraception could sit back and truly try to think of a world in which no contraception were available-- where every woman had 6, 8, 10, or 12 children. We'd have unspeakable poverty. We'd destroy the planet just trying to subsist.

The people above that argue that contraception should be illegal suffer from a moral elitism. They are able to have 12 children because others choose not to and then those with the brood look down at other people for their choices that in fact enable them to live as they wish in the first place, if that made sense. In essence, I'm saying that the moral elitist position relies on people violating their morality in order for them to hold and sustain such a position.

I literally don't understand what these people could be thinking. I mean, such a plan for humanity involves starvation and eventually, pandemic, because if we can't keep our numbers down, nature will do it for us. Sometimes I wonder if staunchly conservative religious folk are just trying to be considered unimportant when it comes to rational discourse.

Perhaps, though, I judge too harshly and in fact there is some method to the madness. This blog is about discussion, so I don't want to shut any of it down. I welcome any and all comments that can help to shed some light on the issue of the immorality of contraception, and then furthermore, if we were to concede immorality, what such a society would look like and how we would sustain ourselves.

The Dalai Lama is a Feminist, so you should be too!

The Dalai Lama offered a light-hearted but very telling comment at the closing ceremonies of the International Freedom Award. He said, "I call myself a feminist. Isn't that what you call someone who fights for women's rights?"

It really is just as simple as that. I think people get locked into hyperbolic images of feminists as radical women who do all sorts of zany and stereotypical things. (Not that feminists shouldn't do those things, by all means, burn some bras!) But in the end, the Dalai Lama has given the world a definition: a feminist is one who fights (and that term need not have a pejorative connotation-remember it's coming from a Buddhist!) for women's rights.

People opposed women's suffrage, de-segregation, interracial marriage, women in the workforce, decriminalization of homo-genital acts and all that business has gone by the wayside. One day we'll shatter the glass ceiling, and provide universal reproductive health care (universal health care, in general, would be wonderful), and allow gay people to marry because, deep down, everyone understands that equality is reasonable and laudable.

No one wants to be denigrated, cast down, spit upon, excluded, or victimized. In talking with people, we can stay away from contentious debates about particulars of controversial issues and understand that we all value freedom and equality as central tenets of what defines the United States and provides the direction we'd like to set for the world. We can start that journey in our own back yard by never discriminating, never disparaging, and always valuing love and compassion.

Never doubt that a committed group of thoughtful people can make a world of difference in the lives of those who can't always speak for themselves.

Make that not two, but three top ten lists!

As if we weren't proud enough as it was with our rankings for conservative religiosity and teen pregnancy, an article in The Oklahoman covers a study that ranks Oklahoma in the top ten for states where men murder women.

Apparently, though, we had fewer incident this past year than in previous years. Thank heavens for small favors! Louisiana topped this list. (gee, I wonder what we have in common with them from Monday's top ten revelations...)

All of these stats seem to add up to one thing in my mind: we have a dearth of respect for women in this state. Misogynistic religious views carry the day, and consequently, men have their way with women. They don't respect women enough to take simple precautions against pregnancy and they make women objects for abuse on which they take out their (no doubt holy, righteous, and god-fearing) wrath.

Responsible religion would teach everyone about the sanctity of life and empower women as the bearers of life, (the life-source of the planet, our planet's most precious natural resource as Eve Ensler terms them) but instead it stacks the deck in favor of men with male leaders, a male godhead, masculine language and terminology, and misogynistic literature. All this results in these sorts of bloody, if predictable, consequences.

One thing stays constant; in all these top tens, the powerless lose.

Oklahoma Makes Two Top Tens!!

Normally that would be a cause for celebration-- to have your state featured in the national spotlight for being at the top of something. In this instance, though, Oklahoma finds itself in the top ten most conservatively religious states (some people might find that cause for celebration) AND in the top ten for teen pregnancies. 

Now, are these just two coincidental happenings? Is it just random happenstance that Oklahoma finds itself in both of these categories, or does a correlation exist? This study seems to fall into the latter camp. 

It's ironic, and the aforementioned write-up points this out, that religious conservatives are better at scaring young people into not having abortions and not using contraception than they are at scaring them into abstinence. If a sin is a sin, then why not just go whole hog? 

This is just one more example of why we need some clear thinking in Oklahoma about what kinds of education can knock us out of a list for the dubious distinction of children begetting children. I'll give you a hint-- it isn't abstinence only education...

Men Are an Essential Component of the Equality Equation?

I encourage each of our readers to visit this link to read this author's take about how important men are in the quest for equality.

It's an important thing to keep in mind. I know that as I went through college that despite the very best and most ardent efforts of the Women's Center and the Women and Gender Studies Program that all their events, especially their informational events, attracted a distinctly female crowd. I loved that certain events were tailored to women. It's wonderful for women to have a safe space, and for many, because of past experiences or because of preference, that safe space only includes women.

But what I really like to see are programs that try to pull men in to make them a part of a solution rather than seeing them as a problem to be overcome through women's solidarity. That's why I like to see OU's White Ribbon Campaign because it is a visual indicator of a principled stance for justice.

As long as feminism remains something about which we talk to our daughters, mothers, and nieces and not our husbands, sons, and nephews, our movement will lack the inclusion and effectiveness that most of us want to see.

I'd love, though, to get some feedback. Do you prefer to see a movement nearly completely represented by those fighting for the cause? It's inspiring to see events to empower women designed and lead by women with the end result of shattering that glass ceiling and all other barriers that persist in society for women. But does that alienate? Does that give the feminist movement a bad name and leave a nasty taste for men? Maybe it's an important lesson in the nature of exclusion. If any readers have an opinion, I'd love to hear it!

Don't Be Down, It's Friday!

So, of course, the underlying fact of sexist advertising isn't funny, but the presentation is. Be more vigilant when you look at ads and how they either target women or use women to reach a male audience and be a "resisting reader;" ie. be critical of everything to more closely discern fact from fiction and understand which companies seek equality and which ones just want your money.

What It Means to Be "Pro-Life"

I was happy to see the write up on a friendly website here.

The political discourse provides this stark dichotomy that states that you are either "pro-life" or "pro-choice", but I’ve always wondered why those who are "pro-choice" are not also considered "pro-life."

I would imagine that there are very, very few people out there who support a woman’s right to choose and what’s in her best interest to do so because they are pro-death or in some way want to emotionally scar women.

Quite the contrary. Whereas many “pro-life” proponents merely seek to limit access to a full range of options for reproductive health, those who are “pro-choice” understand that abortions should be rare and a last resort and that we should eliminate the societal impetuses that forces women to have abortions—be that lack of education, inability to gain access to contraception, sexual assault and abuse; and that, furthermore, we should have a society with a social safety net that supports pregnant women and their would-be progeny. To my mind, that’s an authentic "pro-life" stance.

Props to Dr. Carhart for understanding that most people are "pro-life"—that if they intend to have children that they want the very best for them and for their family so that each human person finds herself able to live a full life, not one marred by lack of care, poor sanitation, shortage of food, and insufficient education. That’s not life. It’s existence, and to merely exist is not a life I would want for myself or for others.