Our Child, Our Future

As the election draws near, and as droves of fearful closet racists have begun to act out, I find myself wondering about the culture in which Marcus and I will be raising our children. How do you raise a child to be sensitive and thoughtful towards other races and cultures in a nation that is so saturated with prejudice? Racism is a part of everyday life here; and I do mean that literally - I enounter it almost every single day.

Not all acts of prejudice are equal. Not every act is violent and not every act is hateful. Some are merely annoying or inconvenient. Some may be frightening while others may provoke a mere eyeroll. It's been years since I've actually been brought to tears over it, which means that I should probably count myself lucky.

This is the culture we live in:

At work: Just yesterday, one of my coworkers called another a "chink" and then quickly dismissed her as being oversensitive when she took offense. The day before, another coworker squinted his eyes at her and then told her that he was part Chinese. Last week yet another coworker (there is no shortage, I tell you!) went on a tirade about how interracial marriage is destroying the country.

Online: Ugh, there is no shortage. I frequently come upon psuedo-scholarly rants about how blacks are naturally inferior and less intelligent than whites in Youtube comments, web forums, comments sections in news articles - basically any medium in which anonymous users have the freedom to rant. It doesn't surprise me to see even the most foul and racially charged comments anywhere online, I suppose because I'm used to it.

Retail: While on vacation, Marcus and I went into a souvenir shop that had several t-shirt designs featuring the confederate flag and wonderful slogans such as "It's called the WHITE house for a reason."

Even our nation's holidays are no exception. The whole nation over, children are being taught that we celebrate Christopher Columbus every October because he "discovered" America. The fact that he was a bit of a murderous psychopath and the father of the TransAtlantic Slave Trade never seems worthy of mention. (Is it really progression to whitewash history and pretend that those things never happened, to celebrate a day that the indigenous people of this country rightfully mourn?)

I think about my childhood and I wonder if our children will endure anything like that. It wasn't awful, it certainly could have been worse...but it certainly could have been better. My brother and I were called nigger sometimes by our classmates. When i was 11, a couple of boys in our school threatened to stab me with a broken hula hoop (they swung it about an inch from my face) and then told my 8-year-old brother that they were going to cut off his penis. He was bullied constantly.

One incident that I don't think I'll ever forget happened to me in 7th grade. A black girl named Lynette joined our class (there were about 40 kids to a grade and 20 to a class - it was a very small school) and she was immensely liked by the popular kids. One of those popular girls, someone who had been my classmate for almost a decade, started talking to me at the start of the school year, which came as a surprise to me. She sought me out at lunchtime and talked to me about boys and makeup or some crap like that, and I just sort of tolerated her for a week or two, until the day she suddenly called me Lynette. Startled, I looked at her and stammered, "I'm not Lynette." This girl, who had known me since pre-K but apparently couldn't tell the difference between me and a complete stranger because of our skin color, just stared at me before saying, "Oh" and walking off, ignoring me ever after.

My brother and I never told anyone about the abuses we suffered in school due to our race, and now that I'm all grown up, I have to wonder why. I remember feeling like it was just the way things were and being certain that if I spoke up, I would not be taken seriously. The people that said these things were usually known as good or okay kids; would any of our teachers even believe us that they could be so hateful in secret? I knew that our parents would believe us, but honestly, I still don't know why I didn't tell them either. I hope that if our children are ever threatened or bullied (because of their skin color or any other reason) that they know that they'll be able talk to us about it.

I hope that my children know that I will always be their advocate.

I don't want to be "that" parent, the one that folks in the PTA hate for not being content with the status quo. Common practices that seem minor and harmless to lots of other people don't seem that way to me (for instance, many people would be horrified if their children brought home an assignment to "color the negro" or dressed up in blackface for a play at school - but it's perfectly acceptable to color a caricature of an Indian or to don a stereotypical costume?), and I'm going to raise my children according to my values. The woman in that link sent her son's assignment back uncompleted, which I think was appropriate. But what if he was punished by his teacher for it? I hate to think that my child could get caught in the middle of an ideological struggle because of me, that she may pay for something that she might not even totally understand.

But at the same time, I can't help my convictions. I can't help feeling that some things are worth fighting for even if it gets ugly, that comfort and approval from others is a small price to pay for doing what is right, that some unsavory truths must be dragged into the light if we're to ever achieve...harmony? I don't know. I don't know what I can realistically expect for our children's futures. I just know that I want my kids to be sensitive, to be aware of their privileges, to be grateful, and to be kind. And I want them to know that doing the right thing will sometimes mean pissing a lot of other people off, but that doesn't make it any less right.

Sarah Palin's Vagina: To Whom Does It Belong?

I originally had absolutely no intention of delving into this, but the topic of Babygate, as it's being called, is exploding all over the Internet. The rumor is that Sarah Palin's youngest child, Trig, is actually her grandchild. Fingers are pointing to Sarah's teenaged daughter Bristol as being the mother of the boy, claiming that Sarah faked her pregnancy in order to cover up the fact that her unmarried minor child had a baby.

Now, I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. I'm a sex-positive feminist, which means that my values are pretty much the exact opposite of her anti-contraception ideology. But the vitriol that people are spewing towards her is disturbing. It has been suggested that her decision to board a plane while in labor with a pre-term Down Syndrome baby was criminally negligent; this is not true. There are no laws on the books dictating that all pregnant women must go directly to the hospital once labor begins, just as there are no laws dictating that women in labor must have a C-section if it's the only way to get the baby out safely. Hell, if a woman in labor (high-risk pregnancy or no) wants to pick up some fast food and rent some movies from Blockbuster first, it's her right.

A woman in labor is still a woman first; her rights to bodily integrity don't end when her water breaks. A woman in labor has the right to do the same boneheaded shit that any non-pregnant person wants to do, whether we agree with her judgment or not, and that includes not getting one's ass to the doctor as soon as one should, or not taking one's medication, or not undergoing a surgery that will probably do more good than harm. If it's not criminally negligent for my non-pregnant coworker to procrastinate seeing her doctor about the pain in her knees for 8 months, it's not criminally negligent for Sarah Palin to put off going to the hospital for 12 hours.

I won't argue against anyone who says that her decision was not the best she could have made (although she claims that she had her doctor's blessing to do it), but it was not criminal. She broke no laws.

I've seen many people speculate that Sarah did what she did after her water broke because she wanted her special-needs son to die, which is vicious speculation at best. No one knows what was going through Sarah's head the day that her son was born, and we have no way of knowing, so I wish that people would just give her the benefit of the doubt. If she's pro-life enough not to abort a Downs Syndrome baby, then I'd like to assume that she's pro-life enough to not deliberately endanger him on the day of his birth.

Another speculation I've seen repeated a few times makes the assumption that Bristol is indeed Trig's mother. There are some who are claiming (without a lick of evidence, mind) that Bristol's father impregnated her, which is another reason why the family would want to keep the pregnancy secret: so that Todd Palin wouldn't be outed as an incestuous child rapist. This rumor is so upsetting that I don't even really know what to say about it. How can people so blithely suggest (with no reason to believe so other than they want dirt) that Todd is a rapist, that Bristol is a victim of incest, and that the best and most compassionate way to deal with it (if true) is to drag them both into the national spotlight and turn it into a media circus?

This entire hullabaloo bothers me because pregnant women are already all-too-often treated as children. You see it all the time. Pregnant women are frequently refused service when they try to buy a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine (even if they never had any intention of drinking it themselves), are lectured in public by complete strangers who have decided that her decision to consume sushi or soft cheese is everyone's business, and are demonized for taking any perceived risks (whether they are actual risks or just unfounded paranoia) at all because a woman's failure to be the perfect mother (even before birth) is too often considered to mean that she can't be a good mother at all.

Imperfect mother = unfit mother. Despite the fact that it's common knowledge that no one is perfect, perfection is absolutely expected of the pregnant woman or mother. Any sign that she may not be putting forth 110% during every moment of her pregnancy (like the day she forgot her pre-natal vitamin or the time that she treated herself to a medium steak dinner) is a sign of absolute failure. I've seen people suggest that because of Sarah's Palin's decision to board that plane, she is an unfit mother and that all of her children should be taken from her. The fact that her children are healthy and seem to be pretty okay is besides the point; apparently the family needs to be broken up and the children displaced - to do what? To punish Sarah? It obviously wouldn't be done in the best interest of the children, so punishment is the only reason I can think of.

People have demanded that, along with her records proving her health, she should turn over any record of how many pregnancies, miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions she's had. The public has a right to know exactly what's gone on in Sarah Palin's reproductive systems over the course of her lifetime, even if it's got nothing to do with her health or ability to serve as VP, should McCain win the election. I can't tell you how much this sense of entitlement to another woman's uterus horrifies me.

I understand that the stakes are high in this election. Trust me, I'm all too aware of how the outcome of this election may effect my life and the lives of those I love. But Sarah Palin's vagina is none of my business, it's none of your business, it's none of the world's business. Her ability to mother is not what's at question here (and the very fact that it was the first thing questioned after the VP announcement is telling; after all, I haven't heard of any witch hunts questioning the abilities of Obama, Biden, or McCain to be good fathers while they run the country, but there are PLENTY of people asking if Palin can be a national executive and a mother at the same time); her ability to to be Vice President needs to be the focus.

Sarah Palin's vagina, Sarah Palin's womb, and Sarah Palin's children all belong to Sarah Palin, unless proven otherwise. So let's just leave them out of the ruckus, shall we?

The Burden Of Proof Lies On You, The Pro-Lifer

One of my favorite things to do when I'm bored or trying to kill time is to peruse forums that center around controversy. Current events blogs provide the best entertainment on an uneventful day. I don't usually get involved in the arguments; I'm content to be a spectator unless something particularly egregious or fallacious presents itself. I also have a bad habit of getting disinterested in the middle of a discussion, especially if it's filled with the same logical fallacies and dishonesties that I've dealt with time and time again, and just leaving it out of pure boredom. I hate having to repeat myself.

My favorite forum to peruse is the pro-choice group on Facebook. I don't get tired of it. If you happen to have already read this entry, you'll know that I am pro-choice. One of the things that I have noticed lately is that many of the pro-lifers I encounter seem to be woefully uninformed about the realities of reproduction, pregnancy, birth, abortion, and adoption. By no means am I claiming that all of them are this misguided (and plenty of pro-choice people don't seem to know much either), but it seems common enough, to say the least. But the pro-choicers are not the ones advocating such an invasion of women's lives and bodies, which is why I say that the burden of proof that abortion should be outlawed lies on the pro-lifers.

I'm not sure if it's really understood just how devastating a measure outlawing abortion would be. It would be the government essentially mandating compulsory organ donation, to an end that could be detrimental to the woman in question mentally, physically, emotionally, socially, and/or financially. It's often said that forced gestation is a way of making the woman “take responsibility” for sex by paying with her body. But this line of thought is not enforced in any other law we have in the United States. If a drunk driver hits a pedestrian, we don't harvest his organs against his will to save his victim's life. He'll pay for his actions, certainly, but not with his flesh.

Outlawing abortion is a drastic measure. It gives the government a frightening amount of power over women's bodies. Attempts to use the law to personify the unborn could very easily and quickly get out of hand; if an embryo is legally a person and a dependent, then abortion would be murder. Smoking while pregnant could be child abuse. Forgetting to take your prenatal vitamins or failing to count kicks in the third trimester could be neglect.

And of women who miscarry? Perhaps every miscarriage and chemical pregnancy should be reported to police and investigated to confirm that it was not the result of foul play; after all, every woman who has miscarried a pregnancy wants nothing more than to be questioned relentlessly about it by strangers, and I'm sure that state governments would love to pay for the genetic testing required to prove that, like up to 70% of all miscarriages, it was the result of chromosomal defects and in no way the fault of the woman. Once we start legislating in favor of the fetus with no regard to the woman it gets its nourishment from, then we could all too easily start legislating what pregnant women can and can't eat, drink, or do.

Considering how drastic it would be to outlaw abortion, and considering the fact that it involves restricting the rights and bodily autonomy of pregnant women in a way that no other citizens have to endure, the burden of proof lies on the pro-lifers, not the pro-choicers, to show that these laws are necessary. And considering how many of the pro-lifers I've encountered that don't have even basic knowledge about reproduction (just today I read the rants of a fellow who not only claimed that “menses” and “ovulation” were the same thing, but that a woman is most fertile during her period), well...I'm underwhelmed, to say the least.

It's not that I don't take pro-lifers seriously just because they are pro-lifers. That's not it. What I'm tired of is arguing with people who claim that it's “only” pregnancy as if it's a cakewalk for every woman; yet these same people haven't taken the time to thoroughly research the facts and implications of what they are supporting. You want all women to endure the short- and long-term side effects and risks of pregnancy, but you don't want to know what those side effects and risks are? You want women to “just” give up their babies for adoption, yet you haven't done the research on the state of adoption in this country? You think it's fair to demand the lives and bodies of these women, but it's too much trouble to try to understand the scope of what you are demanding?

Ideally, I would like every person that identifies as pro-life to take the time and initiative to thoroughly research: the reproductive cycle, including the mechanics and statistics related to implantation and conception; embryonic and fetal development in detail, not just a quick one-page summary of what happens in each trimester; birth control methods and statistics; pregnancy in detail (there are tons of books on this, many written for pregnant women); teenage pregnancy and its effects on individuals as well as society; miscarriage and stillbirth; maternal mortality; infant mortality; prenatal care and its cost and availability to various populations; abortion methods and statistics (there is no such medical procedure as "partial birth abortion"); illegal abortion methods and statistics; rape statistics and law; abstinence-only sex education; comprehensive sex education; abortion law; late-term abortion; the state of adoption and foster care in this country; alternative reproductive methods such as in vitro fertilization; stem cells; breastfeeding; myths about pregnancy; myths about abortion; postpartum depression and psychosis; depression and mental illness in pregnant women (and what it means when a woman with emotional and mental issues has to stop taking her medication for the sake of the fetus); and the short- and long-term costs of unplanned pregnancy on individuals and society as a whole. Hopefully they would find this information from objective sources. I also think it would be beneficial to read material that is written for pregnant women, even if they themselves are not female or pregnant.

I'm not of the “If you don't have a uterus/ have never been pregnant, you can't have an opinion” camp. I've always found that to be a bit silly. I'm of the “If you don't understand the implications of what you are supporting, then why are you supporting it?” camp. You need to know about this stuff before you can make an informed decision. And an informed decision is absolutely necessary in an issue as powerful as this.

For instance, how many of the pro-lifers that believe rape and incest victims should have access to safe abortion actually know anything about rape and incest? How frequently is it reported? How are survivors typically treated when they choose to press charges? How many rapists actually spend time in jail? I don't see how putting a pregnant rape survivor on the stand and having her relive her experience for all the public to see, not to mention force her to experience the trauma of having the rapist's lawyers attempt to prove that she is either a liar or somehow asked to be raped because of her clothes or sexual history, is in any way compassionate or in the best interests of the woman. Not to mention the time that the trial and any appeals would take, which may very well prevent her from being able to get an abortion anyway, even if she "deserves" one. Also, if abortion were only allowed for rape victims, what would keep desperate women and girls from making false accusations, which in turn makes it even more difficult for all rape victims to find justice?

A popular statistic for pro-lifers is the claim that only 1% of pregnancies are the result of rape. This does not take into consideration the fact that the vast majority of rape survivors will never report their rapes, especially if it occured within a relationship or marriage. There isn't even a consensus on a definition of rape. Hell, in Maryland, it's not even legally considered rape if a woman changes her mind during sex and asks her partner to stop, but the man ignores her and keeps going for as long as he wants. Once penetration has occurred, a woman's right to say "no" is revoked until her partner climaxes. I consider that rape, even if my state does not, so the stats are definitely not going to accurately reflect reality.

But I digress.

I get frustrated when people cite metaphysical reasons against abortion. We cannot legislate on the basis of whether or not something has a soul. Souls do not exist in the eyes of the law, and that's how it must be. Anyone who thinks that they want religious law to become actual law has not thought it through; as they say, be careful what you wish for or you may just get it. I don't know any Baptists who would want to live under Catholic law, or Muslims who would want to live under Judaic law, or atheists who would want to live under Scientology's law. Legislating according to religious laws would mean that we would have to select a specific religion, and then a specific sect within that religion, and then a specific church within that sect (beliefs can vary wildly from church to church, especially in Christianity), and follow their rules. No one wants that, I'm sure (unless it was their church that gets to rule the country).

The personal reasons that someone may have for opposing legal access to abortion should be taken into consideration with what they know about abortion, pregnancy, and women. Too many people seem to oppose it because of a gut reaction or theological dogma - and that's perfectly fine, for you or anyone else to be uncomfortable with abortion. But to legislate on it requires more evidence than just a gut feeling or religious conviction. You have to demonstrate an actual need for leglislation and a plausible plan of enforcement. And that is something that the pro-life movement has failed to produce thus far.

Pro-family. Pro-child. Pro-choice.

I've been meaning to type this up for a few days now, but I was suddenly hit with that pregnant woman's fatigue that I've been reading about. I'm able to stay more or less awake and alert during the work day, but once I get home...it's like I've been drugged. I can barely keep my eyes open, and it doesn't seem to matter if I get 8 hours or 12 hours of sleep or more. I spent only about 5 hours on all of Sunday really awake; the rest of the time I was either totally unconscious or completely zombified and struggling against the urge to sleep (I wanted to watch The Simpsons, okay?).

Anyway, I'm taking the time to write this now. I'm vehemently pro-choice (as is my husband), and still am, and a couple of my not-so-pro-choice friends seem to find this a tad contradictory. I've been asked whether I think my views will change after all this; I don't think so. If anything, now that I am where I am (6w4d, yay!), my assertion that no woman or girl should be forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth against her will has been strengthened.

My body has been changing, and most of those changes have been not so fun, even though I've only been experiencing very mild symptoms so far. I've been reading about the changes that are yet to come, and about the trial that is childbirth, and I've gotta say that I absolutely cannot imagine what it would be like to go through this if I didn't want to. That reality seems absolutely horrific to me, and to force anyone to endure it against their will is barbaric. And I'm one of the lucky ones, with my mild symptoms and good money and eager father-to-be and health insurance. This shit is hard. This shit is scary. This shit will change me forever. And because of that, it needs to be entirely voluntary.

I've also received comments from my friends when I refer to the little stowaway as my baby. They've been quick to interject, "It's not a baby, it's a parasite/embryo, remember?" Right. I've said before and I'll say again that I believe that every woman has the right to define her own pregnancy. Developmentally, an embryo is an embryo; a fetus is a fetus; a baby is a baby; a child is a child; an adult is an adult; and a cat is a cat. These things are what they are, and nothing but time can change that (although the cat stands a pretty good chance of always being a cat).

But when it comes to developing relationships, that is utterly objective, and no one but the woman whose body is currently being held hostage has the right to define this relationship, if she chooses to have one. Thus, even though an embryo is an embryo, my husband is a man, and my cat is a cat, my relationships with them as I've defined them gives me the freedom to call each and every one of them my baby. It's a term of endearment that I've assigned to the focus of my various relationships (hell, plenty of people even refer to their cars as babies), and I find nothing strange nor contradictory about using it.

I'm excited about this pregnancy, as I have the right to be, and I'm excited about the relationship I've chosen to have with the embryo in my body, and I'm excited about being a mom sometime next year. And I support every woman and girl's right to decide the same way...or not. It's that simple.