The peasant's rant.

I am deathly sick of sucking up to people.

Yeah, I said it. I'm sick of being made to believe that sucking up to other people, many of whom I don't particularly like or enjoy being around, is the only way to get ahead in life. Even if it is.

I hate going into a group interview for a minimum-wage job and watching five or six people trip all over each other to answer each question exactly how they think the interviewer wants it answered. They wear fancy clothes they would never wear to a day of work and are ready to say or do anything to land a job that they will probably detest within two weeks of starting. I want to tell them to preserve their dignity.

Fancy clothes in general bother me. Do you really feel better about yourself just because I dressed up to see you? Are you really impressed just because I'm wearing a skirt? It says nothing about the content of my character, except that I know how to suck up to people.

I hate pretending that these crappy jobs matter to me at all. I hate the people who snap their fingers at me to get my attention in the Panera Bread dining room, then come up with some ridiculous complaint about their sandwich (Oh, your bread wasn't "toasty" enough?) or the customers who storm the registers at Borders and demand to use a coupon that corporate has expressly told us not to use, then raise their eyebrows expectantly, like my job (and therefore my life) hangs in the balance if they aren't completely satisfied. You want me to fetch you butter? There were droplets of water on your table? You're going to call corporate and complain? Do you really think I care about you? Even one little bit? I don't! I think that all you fat, lazy people should stop stuffing your faces and stop acting like you've purchased my soul for the 8.95 you paid for your sandwich. But you can bet I'll get all wide-eyed and noddy and go fix the problem-- and I don't even know why.

I'm sick of being expected to pretend that every single professor is the most brilliant one I've ever had. I just can't do it. I hate sitting in a class and listening to the inevitable two or three students who take every possible opportunity to raise their hand and agree with what the professor has just said or to reiterate something the professor said five minutes ago. What are they after? A good grade? A letter of recommendation? Why can't we just earn those things?

I hate being told that networking, not an education, is really what I'm supposed to be after in college. Even if it is. Basically, I'm paying $30,000 over the next few years to suck up to people so that they can find me more people to suck up to after I graduate. If I'm worthy, that is.

I'm sick of the idea that happiness lies within the next job, the next promotion, the next internship, the next interview. I don't believe that the satisfaction I get out of life should depend on how many people I can impress or suck up to.

I want to move to the woods and live off of nuts and berries and stop pretending that I care what anybody thinks. I want to become a recluse.

What? Do you think this is an unhealthy attitude or something?

El dilema de las lenguas.

Blah, I'm getting in arguments on Facebook again. It's about that favorite topic of mine-- immigration. Actually, it's not really. All I said was that I think California should keep two official languages, English and Spanish.

Am I crazy? According to most of my Facebook friends, I'm being a hippie-dippy liberal. But I really don't think so. After the Mexican-American War ended in 1848, we signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mexico surrendered 55% of their territory to the United States, and in turn, the United States agreed to respect the culture of the natives, which included keeping Spanish as an official state language.

I know we never respect our treaties like we're supposed to, but if you ask me, that makes it pretty hypocritical for anyone to get hostile with an immigrant to hasn't yet mastered the English language. You know... they were here first. You're more of an immigrant than they are.

I'm not saying that immigrants shouldn't bother to learn English, but I really think it would be in our best interest for everyone to attempt to learn both. The Spanish language is an integral part of our culture, because-- guess what? We used to be Mexico. How many gaps could we bridge if we taught Spanish immersion in schools? We could prepare our children so much better for the global economy. Kids would be given a valuable skill they could immediately use. And children from Spanish-speaking homes, of which there are many, wouldn't be placed at such an unfair disadvantage. We can't deny that the Spanish language is a vital part of our culture. Just walk through some of the neighborhoods in southern California (or even up here in northern California) and you'll see every sign en español. And yet few of us understand what they say.

In Canada, we have two languages: l'anglais et le français. Every street sign is in English and French. Kids in school are taught English and French. Does everyone speak both languages? No, but there's always someone around who will understand you if you only speak one or the other. No one gets pissed off at you for not knowing English or not knowing French. The result is simply a more integrated society. With smarter, less polarized people.

I just do not understand why it is so unthinkable to people.

True Tolerance?

Huh???!

Okay, so Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian group, has basically come out and said they disagree with the inclusion of "sexual orientation" in anti-bullying laws, because a) they believe that this issue is being "hijacked by activists" and b) it leaves no room for schools to include a viewpoint about homosexuality that is not positive. Cushman, from FotF's web site: "What parents need to be aware of is there are activist groups who want to promote homosexuality to kids because they realize if they can capture hearts and minds of our children at the earliest ages they will have for all practical purposes won the clash of values that we are currently experiencing" (TrueTolerance.org).

And then she goes on Anderson Cooper and tries to sound logical while conveying two completely different messages to what she perceives as two different groups of people. On her web site, she blathers about the gay agenda and schools becoming centers of "indoctrination"... on the show, she claims that all children should be protected from bullying, gay or otherwise. Just, you know, we shouldn't specify why they're protected, because that will put forth the crazy and radical message that homosexuality is okay.

Let me first state the obvious, liberally-biased perspective I hold: homosexuality is okay. I don't think I'm indoctrinating anyone by telling them to respect their peers regardless of who they love.

If you omit specific language about sexual orientation from anti-bullying laws, here is what the result will be: yes, some schools will continue to enforce zero-tolerance bullying policies in all situations. They'll continue to reprimand students for using the word "gay" in a derogatory way (like my school did) and neutrally teach that all students deserve respect. (Note: these are probably the schools that include "sexual orientation" in their official bullying policies anyway). But other schools, schools where administrators, teachers and parents object to homosexuality on religious grounds, will continue to turn a blind eye to the horrific bullying that gay kids are subject to without fear of reprimand, backlash, or lawsuit. Focus on the Family believes that schools should continue to have that right. Congress seems to believe that the interest of protecting all students trumps the public school's right to religious freedom, and I would agree.

"So what’s the real reason so many homosexual advocacy groups are pushing so hard for these pro-gay bullying policies (listing special protections for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”)? In public, they claim it’s all about protecting kids. But behind the scenes, they are using these policies to accomplish three things:
1. Get the leverage they need to get what they want into public schools—such as mandatory diversity trainings, homosexual-themed curricula all the way down to the elementary level and school wide assemblies and/or celebrations on homosexual and transgender issues.
2. A tool that lets them evade parental rights.
3. A way to circumvent traditional, marriage laws."
-- From TrueTolerance.org.

I don't know... all I have to say is, I could respect their message a little more if the "gay agenda" really was pushing homosexuality as somehow superior. FotF makes it sound like they're raising a giant rainbow army to turn everyone gay. But even if this anti-bullying law is some big gay conspiracy as FotF would have you believe, all they're trying to do is create an environment of tolerance and equality instead of hate-- and people are threatened by that?  I personally believe that the bill making its way through Congress will do nothing except protect children from the rampant homophobic bullying in our schools.

And how can you argue that children aren't targeted because of homosexuality? Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover (pictured), eleven years old, hung himself. He didn't even identify as gay but was bullied relentlessly because other students thought he was. Joshua Melo, tenth grader. Even after his death, the principal said he couldn't control what went on in the hallways.

And I'd be a lot quicker to buy FotF's argument of all-inclusive anti-bullying laws if their books and other literature didn't actively promote teaching your kids that homosexuality is wrong and shameful. It seems the rainbow army is not the only one with an agenda.

My favorite teen mom.

Hahaha wow... I have to admit I totally missed this.



Yeah, Bristol... what if? Even better... what if you'd learned how to use birth control?

Losing, or choosing, their religion.

This is unrelated to my favorite topic of feminism, and probably way too personal and potentially offensive to be posting on my blog, but I need to rant and this is the place where I know how to do it.

I just got into the most upsetting discussion-debate-argument with my boyfriend about something we shouldn't even be considering yet: if he has kids, he wants to raise them as Christians. I don't want to raise my children in any kind of religious institution at all, under any circumstances, and I'm unwilling to compromise on that matter.

Fully disclosed: I wasn't raised as a Christian. I was baptized in the Anglican Church as a baby but we fell out of the church when I was four or so. I remember little about the church we attended other than the inside of the playroom for noisy children. When I asked my parents a question about God, I probably got an answer like "I don't know," and if I asked them a question about the Bible, I'd get something along the lines of "It was written by people." On the other hand, my parents never stopped me from exploring religion if I wanted to. My mom bought me a book of Bible stories when I asked for one without getting offended. I visited church with my friends on several occasions and I even went to Mormon girls' camp when I was eleven. But in the end, I realized that I took issue with other people telling me what to believe. How could they possibly know what the truth is any better than I do? And I came right back to where my parents started me: "I don't know."

Lots of people argue that religion (Christianity, for example) lays a foundation and serves as a set of guidelines for kids, and teaches them to be good people. I'm sure that it does. I know lots of really nice Christians who do a lot of good in the world. But I don't think they need a church to tell them to be good people. Because if that foundation comes crumbling down when you're a teenager or adult and you start questioning your beliefs, what do you have to fall back on? If you lose your faith in your church, you won't have a reason to be a good person anymore.

And guess what? Despite my tragic deficiencies in religious principles, I was brought up to hold surprisingly strong morals, and I at least feel like I became a very decent person. Personally, I think it's because I wasn't religious. I wanted to be a good person because-- uh, I wanted to be a good person. I wanted to be nice to people because I wanted them to be nice to me. I was taught to make smart decisions for myself (not drinking, smoking, sleeping around like crazy, ect.) because that was what was best for me, not because some angry God was going to strike me down if I did those things.

I want my kids to be able to see the big picture. I don't want them to be blinded by one point of view. Religion can destroy people. It really can. Some Christians are so convinced that their religious principles are perfectly correct that they'll scream at women outside abortion clinics and pass ballot initiatives to take away the rights of homosexuals just because they're different. What happened to forgiveness, and treating people how you want to be treated? The bedrock principles of Christianity?



But that's not to say I have anything against religion in itself-- I don't. Again, who am I to tell you what to believe? I don't know any better than you do. And that's exactly why I would never, ever raise my children as Christians: not because I'd be horrified if they became Christians, but because I'm not going to tell them who they are or what they should believe. What good is a belief if you don't come to it on your own? If you only believe it because you've never known anything else? Because I'll tell you one thing for sure-- the kids screaming outside abortion clinics, or the kids with "GOD HATES FAGS" signs, the "Christians" who seem to be full of hate-- those kids are never the ones who came to their beliefs on their own. They're the ones who were indoctrinated and conditioned. (Side note: if you want an example, watch Jesus Camp. That's where the second picture is from. It's the scariest movie I've ever seen.)

If someday I marry a person who is so adamantly religious that they insist on raising our children in their church, I know that my point of view is going to seem very selfish to them. After all, they have a religion, and I don't, so shouldn't I let them take the reins in our children's religious upbringing? Maybe I'm being a hypocrite, and maybe I'm indoctrinated myself with the liberal secularism my parents instilled in me. But my conviction that my future kids should learn to question and think for themselves is just as important to me as any religious belief could ever be. It will still teach my children to be good people, and for the right reasons.

And don't worry, honey: if your church really is the true one, out of all the possible denominations out there, they're bound to choose it on their own. They're great critical thinkers, my kids, and they'll know truth when they see it.

I do, I do, I do, I do again.

So I've been meaning to blog about Carolyn Jessop's two books, Escape and Triumph, for a while now. For those of you who don't know, I have an all-consuming fascination with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), which is an absolutely f'ing crazy unusual and radical offshoot of the mainstream Mormon church. I hate to refer you to Wikipedia, but it will give you a quick overview of the church if you're unfamiliar with it: here.

This seems like an appropriate time to talk about marriage, and the FLDS seems to have become the face that most people associate with polygamy. They are one of the largest practitioners of polygamy in the United States, with approximately 10,000 members (including those in British Columbia). But in fact, the FLDS accounts for only about 25% of the polygamists in the United States. The other 75%? Just regular ol' Mormons who happened to branch off from the mainstream church to live "the principle" (possibly getting excommunicated from the LDS church in the process). They don't wear pioneer dresses, they cut their hair freely, they choose their spouses themselves, and (besides the fact that there's more than two of those spouses involved) they generally live pretty normal lives.

I bring this up because the majority of FLDS members shroud their plural marriages in secrecy. They're constantly afraid of being exposed to the government, and when the government does raid them, they're quick to cry "religious persecution" and rattle off their constitutional rights. To anyone who reads the news, however, it's obvious that the government isn't ordering these raids over polygamy, pioneer dresses or their alternative lifestyle-- just child abuse, domestic violence and underage marriages. Unfortunately, you can't look at one aspect of FLDS culture without exposing the ugly underbelly of how their cult actually runs.

But many people live an apparently "healthy" polygamist lifestyle, of their own free will, without any of these cultish pressures. So, let's isolate polygamy itself. We don't all agree with it. Most of us can't imagine it. But can a self-respecting person truly thrive in a polygamous relationship, and if so, is it really fair that we still have laws on the books against it?



I mean, honestly-- with all this talk about "redefining" marriage, it's only a matter of time before this comes up in the courts. What right do we have to legislate relationships between consenting adults, just because we don't agree with them?

I realize that changing the number of partners in a marriage is a little different than changing the genders of those partners. And I personally can't see how a polygamous marriage could ever be healthy or rewarding. But that's just me. I still don't think there's much of a compelling reason why anti-polygamy laws should stay on the books. If anything, I only see compelling reasons why the institution of marriage should be removed from the law altogether.

Just some food for thought.

Yippee!

Long time no blog, I know. I have one coming, I promise. For now I'd just like to say...

PROP 8 WAS OVERTURNED BY THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT!

... suckers. :)

South Carolina Republican Sen. James Demint called the decision "another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage." Demint also said, "Traditional marriage has been the foundation of civil society for centuries and we cannot simply toss it aside to fit the political whims of liberal activists with gavels." lol...

Marriage, motherhood, and choice.

Don't ask me why, but I read the first few chapters of a book called Women Who Make the World Worse by Kate O'Beirne. I couldn't force myself to go beyond that. Her entire premise enraged me, of course, as it was meant to, mostly because a) she lumps all feminists into the angry, buzz-cut, man-hating stereotype, and b) she completely ignores the fact that the gains of the feminist movement are the only reason she's allowed to write books in the first place.

I just hate when women assume that because I consider myself a feminist, that means I'm judging them for wanting to stay at home and raise kids. For instance, a few weeks ago I was on someone's Facebook page and they were complaining about Twilight, so I chimed in with my two cents about how Bella is ridiculously self-sacrificing and how the books encourage the idea that women should value staying at home and having kids above all else. I realize it was a little silly, and I was expecting the old "Oh, shut up, it's just a book," line, but this lady totally recoiled as if I were attacking her lifestyle. "Mothers are self-sacrificing by nature. Not all of us have to be genderless man-hating robots! If you'd just learn to calm down you'd realize not everyone is trying to take away your rights."

First of all, in defense of my comment. I am all for women choosing to stay at home and take care of their children. What I am not all for is books aimed towards a young adult audience which actively encourage the idea that that is all they should be preoccupied with. I don't recall a point in the series where Bella weighs her options and says, "Hmm. Do I want to spend all my time with this guy who stands outside my window? Do I want to marry him? Do I want to go through with this dangerous pregnancy even though I'm still a teenager? Do I want to give up my humanity?" No. Bella is immediately enamored with him, her entire life before him seems unimportant-- the second she meets him, her choice to give up everything is already made.

And do I think we should be encouraging young girls to be waiting for the man who's going to make their life worth living?... absolutely not. We're not all going to find our Edwards, and personally I wouldn't want a chauvinistic vampire following me around.

All the feminist movement aimed to do was give women the choice. If you want to give up everything for your family, that's wonderful, and I applaud you. But don't argue that we're a certain way "by nature." If a woman has dreamed of being a doctor or an entrepreneur her entire life, her gender shouldn't inhibit her, which historically, it has. If that woman has considered becoming a doctor or an entrepreneur and discovered instead that raising her kids is a more important goal, then great. She's made the choice for herself.

What "anti-feminist" women seem to forget is that feminists are also the ones fighting to make marriage and motherhood easier for them. Who's fighting for paid maternity and paternity leave in the U.S.? Oh, yeah, feminists. Universal and affordable childcare? Feminists. Fair wages for parents? Affordable healthcare? ... you get my point.

Yes, feminists believe in birth control and the right to choose an abortion. But choose, one way or the other-- no one is advocating forced abortion, but they just want to make sure that the only women who become mothers are the ones who want to. In fact, feminists are the ones fighting compulsory sterilization, too. Believe it or not, that still happens.

Feminism is really a very simple idea. Equality for men and women. If that idea offends you, then you're the one who thinks that staying home to be a mom makes you less equal, not us. And if that's the case, you should probably go over your choices a time or two more, because that probably means you're not getting adequate support (from your significant other, or somewhere else) about the choice you did make. And that support is what feminists are trying to ensure you receive.

I just wish that those of my friends who are wives and mothers knew I wasn't out to get them for their choices.

The woes of saying yes to a sparkly ring.

So ever since the prop 8 shenanigans began there's been a lot of talk about "traditional marriage," mostly in the context of keeping it away from the evil gays who killed the dinosaurs. But today in my infinite feminist ponderings I got to thinking about what the traditions of marriage actually are. And I have to say: if I choose to get hitched, I'm not quite sure that I want to participate in any of these traditions at all.

For one thing, the woman changing her last name. This is an obvious example, but it's one that we rarely think about. Think about what it symbolizes. You're joining his family, but not the other way around. Obviously that's not always the case: many couples remain close with both sets of parents/in-laws. But that's the historical significance: transferring ownership from your father to your husband.

I grew up in a pretty egalitarian household, but I never thought twice about the fact that I had my dad's name and not my mom's, at least not that I can remember. In fact, I distinctly remember thinking several times that if I didn't like my last name, it was okay because I wouldn't have it forever. It didn't strike me as strange in any way that I would one day change my name. But one day in sociology class our professor dropped that bomb on us and I realized how perfectly f'ed-up it actually is.

I mean, I obviously understand why you'd want to have the same last name as your husband. Once you've decided to have a family together, it's nice that your last name indicates you're a family. But why should the woman automatically be expected to abandon her former identity and take the man's last name? Why can't the couple just decide on the name they like better? Men taking their wife's last name is virtually unheard of, and it's much more difficult for a man to change his name legally than a woman. I was reading a 2007 article about men who take their wife's last name: one is suing the state because of all the legal hurdles.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that a man should take his wife's last name either. I'm suggesting that no one should be expected to change their name just because it's "tradition."

But a lot more women are keeping their names these days, and I probably will too someday. I can give up the thrill and romance of unifying myself to my partner through a name change. But there's another tradition that irks me even more-- and at the same time, would be even harder to say no to.

Engagement rings.

First of all, let me be clear. Under no circumstances am I judging any woman who wears an engagement ring. I'm not even judging a woman who gets excited about one. I probably would too. They're romantic and exciting and you can tell the whole world how stoked you are about getting married without having to shout about it. Secondly, my entire argument is null and void if both partners wear rings. If this is the case, I see no problem with it whatsoever. But a) two sets of rings are a lot of money and b) most men will not wear an engagement ring. My boyfriend argued with me about this, but I've never heard of a guy I know wearing one. I read an article here about some of the possible reasons why it's just not heard of, and they're all lame: "It's emasculating" or "I would take too much shit from my friends," ect. As Chris argued, if a guy's not willing to suck it up and wear one showing his commitment he's a jerk anyway and no one should be marrying him.

But here's the thing: historically speaking, rings weren't a symbol of unity or mutual commitment. They were a symbol of property. A man gave a woman a ring to ward off other potential suitors, to put a "she's mine" stamp on her hand. I'm not saying that when a guy today gets down on his knees and presents this gorgeous ring to a woman, he's thinking "Now no other guy will come near her"... he probably thinks he's being romantic and sweet, and he is. But that doesn't change the fact that by wearing the ring, the girl is forced to proclaim her "taken" status to the world while traditionally, the man is not forced to show the same commitment.



Not to mention the fact that the guy is just plain buying her off. Did you know that over 80% of women get a diamond ring when they're engaged-- and the average value of a ring is $3,200? Why does our society think it's necessary to get the biggest, flashiest ring possible? So the girl can say "look how much my man loves me" (see above) or "look how much I'm worth?" Shouldn't an engagement be about the relationship, not the ring?

Again, does this mean anyone is wrong for wanting an engagement ring? No. Of course not. It's tradition. Tradition marketed by jewelry companies. And if you haven't discussed the issue beforehand and your partner gets down on their knees and presents you with a beautiful ring, you aren't going to say "Sorry, I'll marry you, but I don't want this thing." At least, I don't think most people would. It's not like you can't have an egalitarian marriage and still wear a ring. Even with the knowledge of what engagement rings symbolize, I would have a hard time saying no if the person I was marrying went to the trouble of getting one-- but I would certainly insist that if I'm wearing one, so is he.

And I'm well aware that the tradition of engagement rings is not disappearing anytime soon. I would just challenge women to be truly aware of why they feel they need one. I ran across a page where people were debating whether or not it's really an engagement without the ring. To me, the obvious answer is-- duh, of course it is. But a lot of people view it as absolutely necessary. Most of the arguments are rooted in "tradition" (hmm, doesn't that sound familiar?) but one comment struck me as particularly ridiculous: "Uh um, Without a ring there is no engagement!. There is no official promise of marriage. The word's 'Will you marry me' is not enough to qualify as an official engagement." Uh um, WHAT? Again, isn't this about the love and commitment and not the bling? If you can't trust this person to marry you without harboring a materialistic symbol to prove it, I don't think you can trust them to marry you at all.

WTF Twilight.

I would just like to take this opportunity to remind everyone why Twilight is the best thing to ever happen to our generation.



1. First of all, I know it's just a book and it's not going to change anything. It was just written for fun. Literature is obviously irrelevant to the true state of our society. This is why Uncle Tom's Cabin is never talked about in history classes, The Grapes of Wrath was written off as a fantasy novel and To Kill a Mockingbird says nothing about the sunshiny attitudes towards blacks in the 1930s.

2. Bella and Edward are so romantic. I love that she drops everything in her life to be with him, and that once she's found her perfect man none of her other ambitions or dreams seem to matter anymore. I also love that he's over a hundred years old, the perfect age for a seventeen-year-old.

3. I love that Edward takes care of Bella, to the point where he needs to stand outside her window at night to watch her sleep, and protect her from every potential danger that could possibly cross her path. It's wonderful that Bella knows her place in society, and that she's submissive enough to let Edward fight her battles for her. This is what we should be teaching young girls.



4. I think that when teenage girls are dumped by their boyfriends, it's healthy to fade into suicidal depression. They should always practice putting themselves in life-threatening situations on the off-chance they'll see their beloved's face in their imminent death.

5. As the most intelligent Twilight fans never fail to argue, Bella is really a feminist, because she's choosing to get married as a teenager, follow through with a dangerous pregnancy, and give up the rest of her life and her humanity. Even though I never remember a point where she makes a decision, just a point where her need for Edward overcomes all other needs. But if she does make a decision it's a smart one, because finding your one true love, getting married, having kids, and remaining eternally youthful are the only ways to be truly fulfilled.

--- “Our relationship couldn’t continue to balance, as it did, on the point of a knife. We would fall off one edge or the other, depending entirely upon HIS decision, or HIS instincts. My decision was made, made before I’d ever consciously chosen, and I was committed to seeing it through. Because there was nothing more terrifying to me, more excruciating, than the thought of turning away from him. It was an impossibility.” Twilight, Chapter 12, p.248

Oh, that sounds like the most egalitarian relationship I've ever heard of. What are these feminists talking about?

:) Anyone want to stake me yet?

Good. Time to go read Harry Potter.

The time has come.

"We stand now where two roads diverge. But unlike the roads in Robert Frost's familiar poem, they are not equally fair. The road we have long been traveling is deceptively easy, a smooth superhighway on which we progress with great speed, but at its end lies disaster. The other fork of the road—the one "less traveled by"—offers our last, our only chance to reach a destination that assures the preservation of the earth."
— Rachel Carson

I'm not going to try to make the argument that climate change is or is not happening. Plenty of other people are making that argument for me. If you're one of many who don't understand the concept, read up here. Personally, I took an oceanography class last fall that basically turned into a global warming class, and my professor presented enough explanation and evidence to wholly convince me that human activity is heating up the planet. But for the sake of argument, we can say that it's a total conspiracy made up by Al Gore for attention [which is the oh-so-coherent argument my older brother likes to refer to], and it still doesn't explain why people-- Americans in particular-- think it's okay to trash the planet.

I'll start with a simple example. Plastic bags. From the standpoint of a person who believes in climate change, they are awful. The United States goes through approximately 100 billion bags a year, which take about 12 million barrels of oil to produce (some sources say more-- I'm citing this 2007 article). Production of these bags means emitting a whole lot of carbon dioxide, which contributes to the climate crisis. Fewer than 1% of these bags actually get recycled. Instead they sit in landfills, taking up to 1,000 years to biodegrade-- and releasing toxic chemicals into the air and the soil when they do.

But even if you don't "believe" in global warming (as if global warming is some fairy tale that's going to disappear if the children of the world don't clap their hands), it's obvious that plastic bags are terrible for the environment-- and yet it just doesn't seem to matter to people. When I worked at Borders I would ask every customer if they needed a bag. Lots of them said no, but most of them said yes, and some of them gave the weirdest justifications for it. "Yeah, I'm going back in the store to find my kids, so I need a bag." Umm, you have a receipt. "Oh, yes, I need a bag-- I don't want to look like I stole it!" Lady, you have a mass market paperback, and if there was someone waiting to tackle you at the door for not having a bag, I wouldn't have asked you if you needed one. "Oh, yes, just so I can keep everything together." Because your book is going to get lost in the vortex of your purse? My personal favorite was when people would get offended that I even suggested not taking a bag. "Yes, of course I need a bag!" they would say in an agitated, haughty, what-is-the-world-coming-to kind of tone. I'm sorry-- how dare I suggest that you be considerate of the environment? Even if it personally offends you that a lot of reputable scientists believe the earth is warming, you can't deny that plastic bags are flying into oceans all over the place, killing millions of sea creatures who mistake them for food. Here's the kicker-- since they're not biodegradable, these bags will often be ingested by fish, who then die because of the toxic chemicals, and continue to float in the ocean long after the fish's body has decomposed.

Obviously some of this is just "old habits die hard"-- even if I don't get why opting not to take a bag is so difficult. But so many people actually seem offended by the idea of global warming that you have to wonder if there's something deeper going on. I'm not talking about the small cluster of scientists who don't support the theory of human involvement in climate change. I don't get the sense that people who get upset with me for not offering them a bag are doing so because they believe plastic bags are environmentally superior. You couldn't argue that point. Because most of the people I've talked to-- the ones who don't, or don't want to, believe in the global warming theory-- don't even understand the science behind it. You can tell when people say things like "How can global warming exist? It's snowing outside!"

I think people have been taught to distrust science over the years. Religion told us that we were the center of the earth. Science said nope, we're not-- we actually revolve around the sun. Okay, religion says, but we're still special, because we were created by God a few hundred years ago after he made the earth in seven days. Actually, science says, the earth has been around billions of years, and we certainly weren't around-- in fact, we evolved from other species. Now science threatens our lifestyle. No longer can we sit back and believe Earth has infinite resources to be utilized by us, and plenty to spare and waste.

I hate that the issue is so politically charged. I hate that I can't say I care about the environment without someone calling me a bleeding heart liberal. Because it affects each and every one of us.

Anyway... people have their own reasons for not "believing" in climate change, or believing that their actions don't have an impact on it. Like I said, I'm not going to try and convince you that it's accurate or inaccurate. Even if it's phony, I just don't understand why people think that means they should grab plastic bags at every possible opportunity that are going to end up poisoning the earth in one way or another. Or drive SUVs and trucks that pollute the air we breathe. No matter what you believe about Gore or climate change or any of it, not being conscientious is really just cruel.



(Disclaimer: polar bear thrown in as a shameless emotional appeal. It is adorable and you can't deny that either.)

Pro-life, or struggling for control?

Hola everyone. I recently read a book called Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica Valenti. Voici:



It wasn't bad, but I don't really know why I read it. It contained a lot of standard feminist argumentation and information (Yes, women make up 15% of the seats in Congress. Yes, women make .77 to man's 1.00) as well as quite a few tidbits I had no idea about: for example, did you know that in some states, women have been denied their birth control prescriptions by their pharmacists because it goes against the pharmacists' religious beliefs?

Voici: Woman: Pharmacist denied birth control prescription. In this particular case, the woman was married and the pharmacist had an objection to birth control, period, but other pharmacists have denied prescriptions because they object to premarital sex.

Anyway, that's sickening, but it's not my topic today. Valenti had a lot of useful nuggets of information in her book, like that one, but for the most part I was too distracted by her "hip" vernacular, clearly employed to attract a younger audience, to get anything out of it. And what bothered me more was her conviction that all anti-abortion activists, all Christians, everyone working for the mass media, and basically the general population are involved in a conspiracy to keep women from having sex for enjoyment. For example, as Valenti argues, a pharmacist might cite his religious beliefs to keep from selling a woman birth control, but no one ever hears of a store clerk refusing to sell condoms to guys. Those who are opposed to birth control and comprehensive sex ed are overwhelmingly opposed to abortion as well, which in Valenti's eyes doesn't make sense-- because you'd think if they really wanted to keep abortion from happening, they'd seek to educate people as much as possible about NOT getting pregnant. Therefore, she concludes, it's not really about protecting potential children, it's about keeping women from having sex and having options. Exerting power over women's choices.

"The idea is that only sluts use contraception, because only sluts would have premarital sex. And when you have sex while you're married, you should be trying to pop out babies, so no birth control for you, either. Basically, it's more of the same 'sex is bad and shameful' crap. Sex isn't supposed to be fun, so they're not about to make it easy. The bottom line? They don't care about our health. They don't care about increasing the number of abortions (which will inevitably happen if we don't have birth control access). All they care about is making sure that women aren't having sex, and that if we are, we're 'punished.' Period. But of course, most of them won't admit that." -- Full Frontal Feminism, p. 83.

Certainly the argument has some validity to it. I believe, absolutely, that women should have the choice to do whatever they want with their own bodies, and I don't think that those who oppose abortion really understand the necessity of that. But framing all anti-abortion activists to be concerned only with wielding power over women kind of seems like a petty attempt to take away from the movement's goals (not to mention the fact that not all anti-abortion activists are anti-birth control). And quite frankly, it reminds me of an old prop 8 commercial which said, "You see, although the argument of redefining marriage is couched in happiness or equal rights, its really about gaining control, forcing all of us to give up the very foundation of speech and religious freedoms on which this country was founded."

For your viewing pleasure:


The quote I'm talking about starts at 1:49.

What I'm getting at, though, is that twisting a group's message to make it about a struggle for power when it's not is just pathetic. Gay rights activists are not trying to control your rights. They're trying to expand rights and achieve equality. Goes back to Anita Bryant's scare tactics about gay teachers trying to recruit your children in the 70's. By the same token, anti-abortion activists truly believe they're protecting the unborn. I happen to believe that the rights of the mother trump the rights of the child who doesn't exist yet, but I can sympathize with their cause and acknowledge their beliefs without actually subscribing to the same views. Claiming that they're just trying to wield control over women's choices is cheapening their movement and further polarizing the two sides, so we're further away from being able to compromise on anything.

Granted, some movements actually do appear to be struggles for power. In fact, I'd say yes on 8 was probably one of them. Gays are fighting for equal rights, and people are opposed to them attaining those rights even when it has no bearing on their own lives. If that's not vying for control, I don't know what is.

I guess maybe Jessica Valenti sees the anti-abortion movement the same way. But if she's going to make such sweeping generalizations about their motivations, she can't come crying when some right-wing nut job claims that the feminist movement is all about women trying to take over the world.

Basia Bulat

Can I just say I love the Autoharp, thanks to this girl?

The future of marriage.

Sorry for the lack of updates. My boyfriend is visiting from Orange County and we seem to be otherwise distracted. Last night we were watching Milk, because he's never seen it, on my computer in my room. When it was over I looked outside and realized I can see the place where Harvey Milk was shot from my window.



Just because my friends asked me to prove it.

What really trips me out-- even though it's admittedly just a movie and it's dramatized and all that-- is the real footage used in the film, especially that of Anita Bryant, who led an anti-gay crusade in Harvey Milk's time. She supported the repeal of an ordinance in Dade County, Florida that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation and was quoted as saying, "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children" and "If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters."

What I think is amazing is that most of us would cringe at these quotes today, but they were perfectly acceptable public discourse less than 40 years ago. The very idea of prosecuting someone for homosexuality or firing a teacher for their sexual orientation strikes me as unthinkable and inherently unconstitutional, but during Harvey Milk's time these were serious debates. The Supreme Court didn't even strike down the last of the anti-sodomy laws on the books until 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas. We've come so far, but despite all this, we have so far to go.

If anyone is friends with me on Facebook, they probably figured out pretty quickly how I felt about prop 8. If not, you can read my notes on it here and here. Be warned that I wrote those around November 2008, before and after prop 8 passed.

So, yeah, I'm not going to go into the 8 debate here, because a) it's obvious I think it is the most horrendous initiative ever passed by California and b) Chris is waiting to go to Fisherman's Wharf. But I just want to say that regardless of what you think about homosexuality, I don't think you can deny that same-sex marriage is inevitably going to be legalized. Just take a look at history. 40 years ago, we were debating whether people should even be allowed to be gay, under the law, or whether openly gay people should be allowed to teach in public schools. Now, even the most socially conservative politicians will usually shy away from saying that gay people shouldn't be allowed a right to live their own lives, even if their lifestyle is not something everyone "agrees" with.

And any constitutional case against same-sex marriage falls flat on its face. I would love to hear anyone try to convince me otherwise. Every argument-- every one!-- against same-sex marriage is rooted in religious values. We can't legally implement our personal religious values on the masses. It's called separation of church and state. We've established that homosexual activity is protected under the right to privacy in Lawrence v. Texas. Finally, we have established, in Loving v. Virginia, that marriage is a fundamental right. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Earl Warren said, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law” (388 U.S. 1). You're really telling me that we have a compelling reason not to extend these protections to gender discrimination? That all hell is going to break loose if we do? Because I hate to break it to you, but people have been arguing "protection of the family" for years, and everyone knows it's just homophobic bullshit.

I don't know. I think the bottom line is: when you're opposing other people's rights for no reason than your own personal preferences, you're never going to win out. Gay rights activists are seeking to give people the choice. Gay rights opponents are seeking to do nothing but take choices away. Overturning 8 will not lead to mass extinction of "the family," nor will it lead to forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages. These arguments are rooted only in fear and homophobia.

Okay. I did rant a little. Sorry.

Wallflowers vs. food and shelter.

So about an hour ago I gave some money to a homeless girl down the street. I couldn't really help it. Since I moved to San Francisco last week I have ignored so many people on the street, averted my eyes so many times, and/or said I didn't have any cash to so many people (which was, in most cases, true). And today I had been especially gluttonous: I went shopping earlier and bought Wallflowers for the apartment, which are these things from Bath & Body Works that you plug into the wall to make the room smell nice. (I mean really, how unnecessary...?) And I was pondering this as I walked down to Walgreens, thinking about why I keep ignoring homeless people (is it because I'm afraid of them or am I just being an asshole?) and then I got to the corner and there was just a girl, sitting there with a cardboard sign, sad and lost. And she said, "Excuse me, um, I know we're not exactly in the same situation, but... well, you're the first person that's stopped and... is there anything you can do to help me?"

So I handed her $10. I had to. It was sitting right there in my bag. I had to somehow make up for all the people I'd avoided, I had to ease my conscience, and I had to own up to the fact that despite my constant financial woes and overdraft fees, I had much more than this girl did, so much more. And it was within my means to help her.

Before you say anything, I'm not posting this to be like, "Ooh, look at me, I gave $10 to one homeless girl. I'm such a humanitarian." I'm not. I could have given her so much more, but I didn't. Besides that, it's entirely possible and very likely that I did not help this girl at all. She was really grateful, of course. But how long is $10 really going to last her? Probably longer than it would last me, but that's not saying much at all. And if you asked most people they'd probably assume that she used the money to go buy drugs or alcohol anyway. They would tell me to keep walking and give my money to a shelter. But I didn't. I assumed and trusted that she would use that $10 for whatever she really needed, and hoped that it would be somehow useful.

Needless to say, the girl was surprised. My mom said later that $10 was too much to give to a homeless person, and that the girl would have been just as thrilled with $2. I don't blame her or anyone else for saying that. Obviously there are a lot of people on the streets with mental or drug issues (I don't know why we should be less inclined to help them in these cases, however). But since when is there a set amount for how much you can give to a person who doesn't have anything? Never mind $2, even $10 is useless to her in the long run. It's not like I changed this girl's life just by being the only person who stopped to give her money.

In critical thinking last semester, my teacher assigned an incredible essay called Famine, Affluence and Morality by Peter Singer. If you have time, you should really read it. It is the most perfectly structured and impenetrable argument I have ever read.

The gist is basically:
1) We do not want people to starve or suffer. Starving and suffering are bad things. I don't think anyone can really disagree with this.
2) "If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it." I, for one, couldn't disagree with this either, although I guess some capitalist purists could. There is no reason why we should not feel obligated to help another person if it is in our means.
3) This principle is not affected by distance or proximity of the person in need. "The fact that a person is physically near to us, so that we have personal contact with him, may make it more likely that we shall assist him, but this does not show that we ought to help him rather than another who happens to be further away." The example Singer uses is walking by and seeing a kid drowning-- of course you're going to help him. But why are you more morally responsible for this child than a child across the world dying of starvation? The kids are still in need; just because you can't see them doesn't mean you shouldn't help them.

But like Singer says, even though this seems relatively uncontroversial and morally correct, if we actually lived by this principle, our lives would be "fundamentally changed."

The kicker in this argument is "comparable moral importance." Singer argues that we should give and give until the point where we would be worse off than the person we're helping if we gave any more. Let's say I'm here, in San Francisco, and I've spent $100 today. This is pretty close to the truth. I got some tank tops, some lotion, Diet Coke, and don't forget those Wallflowers, among whatever else I ended up buying. Some of these things I "needed," but I didn't really need any of them. Surely, this girl's need for food and shelter was more important than my want of luxuries. And it was within my power instead to spend that $100 on improving her less-than-satisfactory life. I could have given and given till she had as much as I did. But I didn't. I gave her ten lousy dollars, and spent the rest on myself. On stupid things you can plug into a wall to make a room smell nice. Forget the fact that they were on sale.

What really gets me is that on its face, this is considered completely morally acceptable within our society. Why? Why is it that I can give $10 and my mom tells me I'm overly generous, when I've bought things that I don't need, and I've barely helped her begin to get the help she needs, if I've helped at all? Do we really think these people are running off spending their money on drugs and only drugs-- or is that just what we tell ourselves so we feel better about keeping our money and spending it selfishly?

I think part of this actually has to do with the proximity issue. Yes, these people are down the street, staring us in the face-- they couldn't get any closer. But I think we would certainly be more inclined to help them if we knew them personally-- if I had a close friend or relative who ended up in this girl's situation, I wouldn't hesitate to help all I could. But because we don't understand their back story, we allow ourselves to believe that these people don't really need our help, that they're taking the lazy route by remaining on the streets, and that they can't be trusted with our money, even if they do obviously need it. Why am I less morally obligated to help a stranger in need than a close friend?

Maybe we're overwhelmed: even if I gave this girl half of what I had, even if I helped her find a job and get an apartment and get her life going, there would still be thousands more on the street needing help, millions more starving around the world. I wouldn't feel like I'd really made a difference. Sure, if each of us helped one person, really helped them and gave them all we could reasonably give, we could end poverty in the U.S.. Just like that. If each of us gave $50 to people starving around the world, we could make an extreme difference. But there's something in the Western frame of mind that is almost repulsed by helping people without some reward in return. I guess it's just plain old capitalism. We don't want to help people who haven't "earned" it. Even though most of these people are nowhere near a position where they could begin to help themselves, and if we stopped kidding ourselves, we would realize that.

Lesson: next time I go anywhere near Bath & Body Works, someone needs to call me out on my bullshit.