Ben and I had a discussion last night about the insanity of what's been happening recently with what people term as "women's issues." There are two major points that came up: the recent gang-rape of a girl in California, and how the Democratic party has totally thrown women under the bus. Neither of these things has really been reported, and probably won't be.

First thing's first.

Essentially, a fifteen-year-old from Richmond, California, went to a homecoming dance. Later, a boy she knew asked if she wanted to get a drink (this was still on campus). She said yes. She ended up being raped, robbed and beaten over a two-hour period. She had to be airlifted to a hospital. And here's the thing. The original report talked about "as many as a dozen" people who stood and watched, doing nothing; later reports upped the number to closer to 20. Do I need to repeat that? Twenty people stood and watched someone being raped. Several of them joined in.

The other major point? From a New York Times piece on the community's response:

As Richmond High School tried to absorb the wrenching reality of a gang rape of a student on school grounds, the predominant reactions — horror or sympathy or even fear — were understood by the school’s principal, Julio Franco.

But there was another reaction that Mr. Franco has difficulty processing: sentiments like those voiced by Fonz Leon, a junior, as he stood in the school parking lot one recent afternoon: “She got drunk one time and messed with the wrong crowd and provoked some dude and got raped, that’s it.”

Mr. Franco said: “Even girls said this was O.K. because she went on her own. I tell them, ‘What if this was your sister? What if this was your mom?’ Then they realize, ‘Oh.’ ” (Emphasis mine)

You've probably heard of rape culture. You've heard of blaming the victim. You've heard of "she was asking for it." But really? She provoked some dude? She got raped? It was okay? It never really hits home that people think women deserve to be raped until you read something like this.

Oh, and just as a sideline ridiculous thing:

"This dance itself was a successful event."
--West Contra Costa Unified School District spokesman Marin Trujillo

Rape culture is a real thing, that we really need to combat. It's not that it shouldn't be okay that 20 people watch a rape and don't report it, or that it shouldn't be okay that people think the victim deserved it. Or that people shouldn't comment on fat women's blogs and tell them they should be grateful someone raped them. Or that people shouldn't consider it okay, ever, to violate someone in any way. It's that it shouldn't occur to them.

There was a great Jezebel article about the rape, and one of the comments was the best thing I've ever seen: "BTW, world. I'm totes b'gotes a human! I think and feel. The only person entitled to my holes is me. So fuck off and don't tell me to lighten up."


I'm not sure what to say in order to fix this. I don't think me saying "okay, guys, don't rape people" is going to do anything. Because what we need is a massive overhaul in what people are being taught. We can't seem to get past the abstinence argument enough to see that what needs to be taught in sex ed is the concept of enthusiastic consent - without that, there shouldn't even be a discussion. Because you know what? I'm tired of hearing that women need to be careful. And that if you go of by yourself, you deserve to be raped. And if you drink, or you're wearing a short skirt, or you've ever had sex before in your life, you were asking for it. I'm tired of carrying my keys in my fist in empty parking lots. It's always our responsibility. Like birth control is our responsibility. Like everything regarding sexuality is our responsibility. That's unfair to women, and it's really unfair to men, too. I don't think men are just incapable of controlling themselves, and that any flash of skin is like a red flag to a bull. We all have brains. We can all think. Give yourself enough credit for that, at least.

More to come on this later.

How can people get so worked up over things that don't matter and skim over huge things that matter more than anything because they don't care?

I'm arguing with someone right now about intelligent design. And I'm kind of sad I'm even involved in that. Because you know what? It doesn't matter. This stuff that everyone gets so upset over, and the stuff that churches break apart over - it's pointless, and stupid. What matters is that right now Christianity is banned in fifty-one countries. Restricted nations: 40. Hostile areas: 11. That's what isn't fair. That's what needs to be changed. And people remain so caught up in which person has offended them personally by existing within the church. And in whether their church is selling doughnuts, and therefore violating Jesus's views on moneychangers. And in what one person has said from a pulpit. Why do we even care? Why do we care who's joining the church in terms of labels when we're forgetting that they are individuals who need salvation, just like we do?

Jesus, and by that I mean the actual Jesus who existed and is documented in the Bible, was not about excluding people. Because he loves everyone. The tax collectors, and the people who commit awful sins, and the lepers, and all the outcasts from society. The only people he actually pointedly disliked were the people who got too caught up in the law and traditions of the church.

Oh wait! Wait, that's us.

There is such a huge number of people that can't gather and worship. They can't sing out loud. They can't publicly own a Bible. And we're worried about a misspelled word?

Where is the passion for Jesus? Being on fire for him and expanding his kingdom and being really, truly concerned about other people? If we really believe in Jesus being the only way shouldn't that count for something? Shouldn't we be passionate about changing people to save them? Don't we care about anyone else but ourselves?

I've always hated Paul. I know that's awful, but from what I've read about him - note that I had not, myself, actually read really anything he wrote - he was totally against women and everything in the Bible is against women and how can I be a Christian when Christians believe this.

I think this is interesting: there's this whole passage in 1 Corinthians about propriety in worship. And the verses I've always seen quoted from that are:
"A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
Right? Which sounds, definitely, pretty awful. Even if you justify it by saying "it was a different time," or whatever. But here's the next part of that verse:
"In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God."

I definitely don't agree with everything Paul wrote. But I don't think I have to. Paul was human, like anyone else.
And I'm finding that I like reading what he's written. He says earlier in 1 Corinthians that "the wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife." I like that. There's a lot more talk about equality in Christ than everyone thinks. And a lot more about the whole point being faith, hope and love.

No, of course the entire New Testament is not fluff and glitter. But I think true faith and love aren't either. Have you ever met a missionary who is full of faith and fire and zeal and talks about puppies and angels and hugging? No. There's a need for God in this world. A desperate need. And people who are truly on fire for that mission don't display faith and love as the world sees them: limp and weak and crutches for those people who aren't strong enough to do things on their own. Love for other people shouldn't be just a half-hearted attempt at affection and maybe giving a quarter to a man on the street. Love should move you. Love should change you. You should be passionate and over-the-top. You should be extending yourself beyond where you think you can go emotionally and physically and financially. People that are around you should be able to tell that you have something different, that you care about them more deeply than most people do. Something in you should be radically different from those around you. Because once you've accepted Jesus it's no longer you that's represented. You have been crucified with Christ, and you no longer live, but Christ lives in you.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up."

Seriously, get off your computer right now and go read 2 Corinthians and Galatians. There's way too much that's good there for me to get through in one blog post, especially because I'm so excited about this. My life is changing. And it's hard. And I love it.

I don't know how people aren't furious.

First of all, this clip.

Look, we all know Pat Robertson is a douche. Really, we do. But that doesn't mean this kind of shit is somehow okay. And so many people think like this. Everyone's grandparents (bar some really open-minded ones) think that gay people (or "The Gays") are all going to hell, they're the reason for the way this country is, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc.

They're always saying that their parents raised them right, and that they wouldn't act how Kids These Days act. Well you know what? You know how their parents didn't fucking raise them? To hate people. To hate a whole group of people so much that not only do you deny them basic human rights, you refuse to accept that they exist. You think that with a few shock treatments, or some real down-to-basics Bible readings, you could change them and make them like you.

Yes, Pat Robertson, they have pride. They have pride about the way they were born, and you know why they have to? Because of people like you who tell them day after day that they're not okay. They're not acceptable. We don't want them. Ever. Anywhere.


Look. I'm sorry I'm so angry all the time, and that my posts are so full of vitriol. But you know why that is? People aren't only ignorant. They're mean, and hateful, and they believe that their way is the only way. And these people are celebrities. People listen to them. Thousands, millions of people watch Fox News. And I'm not saying all those people are bad, or that they all believe what Sean Hannity says is gospel. But some of them do. And some of those people believe everything that they hear that they agree with. And they end up killing people like Dr. Tiller.

There are SO MANY things to be angry about. And no one listens, because they're "women's issues" or "gays' issues" and they don't affect them. But these issues end up affecting everyone.

Read this. Or this. Or this. Or THIS.

Are you furious yet?

And you know what? You should be. We should all be furious. If no one listens, and if no one does anything, and if no one says anything, people are going to continue to literally lose their lives over these issues.

People get so angry about so many little things! People write long, angry blog posts about Adam Lambert losing American Idol or how their children don't want to eat their vegetables or how there are potholes on their street. This is what used to get my mom worked up when she was on the city council - people only care about themselves. They're given the opportunity to do something great for everyone, and they spend all their time calling their congressman about the mosquitoes in their backyard. And for what? Who are they fucking helping? No one. Not even themselves.

Take a second. Sign a petition. Befriend someone who needs it. Do something. Because so, so many people are consciously trying not to help anyone but themselves.

Augh.

This. And not because of the main point of the article, but because of this:

"Earlier this week, underwear firm Triumph International showed off their new bra offering, which boasted a ticking clock on the front.

The bra is designed for women who are looking for a husband, and the only way to stop the clock counting down is to slip an engagement ring into the mechanism.

When the jewellery is put in place, the clock halts and Felix Mendelssohn's 'The Wedding March' begins to play."

Augh. AUGH.

Be careful who you call plus-size.

I really should stop reading things I know will make me angry. But: Perez Hilton posted recently about Mia Tyler "looking like... well, a plus-size model." Not necessarily as bigoted as his commenters made it out to be, and she is a plus-size model. My quarrel is with the concept of "plus-size" and who considers who to be fat.

I've posted about Beth Ditto. I think she's beautiful. She's over the recommended weight for her height, too. Which is all overweight means. It doesn't mean she isn't pretty. It doesn't mean she's going to die earlier. If it makes her happy why does it matter what we think or anyone thinks?

Meanwhile, there's Mia Tyler, who apparently wears somewhere from a 12 to a 16. Who by the way is gorgeous. Can we pause a second for some Mia love?



Yeah, she's hot. I'm pretty sure we can all agree here. And are we shocked? She's LIV TYLER'S SISTER.

The average American woman, need I remind you, is 5'4" and wears a size fourteen. Yes, the average model is much smaller. But what right do we really have to call Mia Tyler, out of anyone, plus-size? Especially since she's the same size we are?

Or is this a self-hatred thing? We aren't what we think we should be, we don't look how we think we should look, but damn it we know how people should look and that's not it.

I don't know. I'm not sure what to think about this. What I'm sure about is the fact that we need, as a society, to reconsider "fat."

Top Ten.

Top ten things I have always wanted:

1. Blue eyes
2. A cat
3. Not actually always, but for a long period I wanted to BE a cat
4. Some way of perpetually having warm waffles delivered to me
5. An indoor slide
6. A castle, or some castle-like building with turrets and secret compartments and spiral staircases and maybe some mysterious clues occasionally
7. A Great Dane
8. To be able to un-see things
9. A wolf (which I now have, to an extent, so check for me)
10. To be good at any sport at all

Top ten things I wish I could do:

1. Climb Everest without dying
2. Help teenage girls understand that they're really, really not fat, and that complaining about being fat constantly isn't winning them any friends
3. Go back and give my ten-year-old self a hug
4. Control more things
5. Control fewer things without freaking out
6. Go to the grocery store without buying something totally idiotic that I will never eat just because the wrapper makes it look like the best thing since sliced bread, especially since I already like sliced bread so much
7. Learn things just by reading the instructional booklets on them
8. Start thinking more like the badass I've always wanted to be and less like the wimp I actually am
9. Be an activist and call my congressman about rape victims being forced to pay for rape kits and petition for equal pay and equal marriage and equal rights for everyone and not just get outraged about things but really do something about them
10. Go to sleep

Miss California and Christianity

A lot has been made of Carrie Prejean's topless ("scandalous") photos, the breast implants that were paid for by the California Pageant Association, and, of course, her comments about gay marriage. There's been a lot of discussion about religious persecution, about intolerance, and a lot of discussion about Christianity.

There was a comment made on Feministing's coverage of the controversy that I liked:

"Well, let's define Christianity. Christianity is the belief that Christ, the son of God, fulfilled God's law by sacrificing his life. And what is God's law? It is the Torah, or Pentateuch -- the first five books of the Bible, one of which you quote from. Much of the Torah, in fact most of it, deals with the practical law of day to day life 2,000 years ago -- which should bring in to focus why, yeah...it might not be a good idea to eat pork and circumcise a boy child.

So the banning of flesh from cloven-hoofed animals, eating scaled animals, sowing mixed seeds, weaving mixed fibers, the bathing rituals for menstruating women, hair length -- not required of Christians by definition of their faith. Following the Bible to a T? Jews do (have to). Christians don't (have to). Blunt, but that's the nutshell.

Even your own ignorance of what the Bible means to Christians undercuts a fabulous point that could be made from the "cherry picking" argument. There is not a lot said about homosexuality in the New Testament. So little is said, in fact, that defending homophobia from a Christian perspective is almost indefensible -- because the focus must, from a Christian perspective, be made from the New Testament and not the Old."

I may not be among the majority here - in fact, I know I'm not - but I really agree with this. I truly believe that a lot of the things fundamentalist Christians believe are wrong - and not only wrong, but I feel like God dislikes those beliefs. Being against an entire group of people, for example, is not really what God is for. And if He was, I wouldn't be Christian. Because I don't believe anyone should be persecuted for their beliefs. It doesn't matter what they believe.

Which is a lot of why there's been so much conversation about Miss California - she's challenging people's standards of things they can accept. If we approve of free speech, then necessarily we must accept her freedom to say things we disagree with. We also can't resort to slut-shaming - putting her down because she's been in topless photos or had breast implants - to discredit her arguments.

Read:
Feministing's article on slut-shaming Carrie Prejean
and the comments I liked most from that article:
here and here

Theme of the day: implied consent.

Another one of my favorite books is called Yes Means Yes, which is a compilation of essays talking about rape, the prevention of rape, and basically about consent. The major theme throughout the book is that implied consent isn't good enough. If you're on a date, and the person seems really into you, and you start making out and you end up on their bed and you don't hear yes, it means no. Always. Every time. It doesn't matter if you've had sex before. It doesn't matter if you're both naked. It doesn't matter if you're married. What matters is an enthusiastic "yes."

If you have sex with someone who said no, it's rape. That's clear enough. But so is sex without anyone saying anything. No one asked, no one agreed, it just happened and now it's done. How are you supposed to know if someone is uncomfortable at that point? You don't, and there's a very large opportunity that someone's going to end up feeling hurt and used. You cannot just go along with it.

The point with "yes means yes" rather than "no means no" is that people should always feel able to say yes. Starting off sex-ed with NO MEANS NO seems - is - very negative. Sex is something to be enjoyed. It should never make you feel bad about yourself later because the point is that it's so much damn fun. And the focus shouldn't be on just protecting yourself, but enjoying yourself.

Check out:
Yes Means Yes, by Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/ (the blog associated with the book)
this essay, which was published in Yes Means Yes


Also, remember that this isn't a male-to-female based thing. Having sex with your boyfriend if he hasn't agreed to it is still rape. There's rape within the lesbian community, and the gay community, and with white men and black women, and with older women and younger men. Rapists aren't only older white guys jumping out of bushes.

Always, always get a "yes."

Beth Ditto and things I don't understand.

I was on Perez Hilton (horrifying, but occasionally I too am bored) and came upon a post about The Gossip and how they're back together and how great they sound. Which they do! And there was a picture up with it, which included Beth Ditto. I then looked her up, because she is kind of gorgeous.

Exhibit A:
Yeah, she's pretty, right? And she's a feminist and openly queer and kind of fantastic. Several designers are fans of hers, and everyone agrees that her voice is amazing.

But the BIG THING about her, apparently, is that she doesn't shave her armpits and she doesn't wear deodorant. That's all. That's everything anyone chooses to notice. Oh, and that she's fat and disgusting. The coverage from progressive media outlets is adoring, and everyone else spends all their time saying things like "Ditto, who’s already hideous enough without adding body hair to the equation, has expressed her adoration for the unshaved and natural look."

One site says "Beth Ditto wants Kate Moss to lead an Anti-Shaving Campaign. No, I’m not joking. The Big front woman has seen the Supermodel potential, and she said Kate is a perfect model to encourage women to stop removing their body hair. Ditto thinks the natural look is sexy, you know, with all the body hair (??) and she’s sure that La Moss is perfect to change women’s attitude to shaving. OMG! This is disgusting. But Kate is too, so I think she’s perfect for this campaign."

Another says "Ditto’s idea is definitely weird and seems to be inspired by the hippie era. And if this was for the sake of publicity, the lady should have resorted to something better."

Why is not shaving automatically disgusting? Seriously. I don't understand. Yeah, not wearing deodorant is a little far from the social norms we're all used to. A lot of things are. But not shaving doesn't go straight to "smells bad" or "doesn't care about oneself" or anything like that. It just goes to "is slightly hairier."

It truly doesn't mean that women who shave less - or not at all - aren't sexy. In fact, shaving your body hair off desensitizes you to a lot of things. Shaving has a part in desexualizing you. Most women's body hair is pretty fine, and for white people it's usually blond. And since we can all agree that white people are the most likely to get all up in arms about this... what? What is the problem here?

Yes, models are waxed and airbrushed and Photoshopped and closeups on actresses in magazines never show any facial hair and there's a booming industry based on hair removal. But that's the thing: it's an industry. The companies that make hair-removal products wouldn't make money if they didn't reinforce the idea, over and over, that being hairy is bad and you're ugly if you have any hair but the stuff on top of your head. Hair is a thing we all have. It's a beautiful, natural thing. And I don't understand how the only important thing about someone can be that they have too much of it.

Hey, shock: this is a thing that frustrates me!

At night I tend to drift in to sit with my mom, who scratches my head while I read. It's an idyllic setting. I feel as though I should be living in 1954. Anyway, tonight I was reading Full Frontal Feminism and a broadcast from Lakewood (the mega-church headed by ultra-creepy Barbie and Ken Learn To Preach couple Joel and Victoria Osteen) was blaring on the television. I don't know if that is some sort of lethal combination, or if earlier conversations today about feminism and the unspoken truth brought it out, but I became furious listening to them preach, or what they call preaching.

Victoria started off with a declaration that they were going to focus on the family this weekend (no, really. I thought you couldn't speak that phrase aloud without the (TM) and perhaps a grimace, but apparently James Dobson really can't ascend from the fiery pits of hell to smite you for it. I guess he isn't actually dead. Whatever.) and that focusing on the family was all about love and acceptance and loving everyone no matter whether it was popular or your Aunt Betty agreed with it, because family is about love. Which is great! I love that. Except, of course, she didn't stop there.

She started into several minutes of talking about how a friend of hers felt so broken because her son had "embraced an alternative lifestyle" (here's a hint: this delicately phrased euphemism does not mean "he's started doing a lot of yoga and talks about Buddha's teachings a lot" or "he's taken up listening to polka and liking it" but rather "he's one of them homosexuals." I know! I was shocked too!) and she didn't know how to handle it and she knew that God didn't like it and everything was RUINED FOREVER.

And Victoria told this friend to believe in what God could do to change her son, and that good things come of bad times, and just because you love them doesn't mean you're condoning the offending behavior.

This makes me want to hit someone.

If family is about love and acceptance, the first thing you do when you hear of a change in someone's life is to learn about whatever they've gotten into. If you disagree with it on principle (which I understand that some people do, even if they know good people who are taking part in the villianous behavior, have done objective research and seen the good and bad sides of it all) then above all you accept them. You don't have to accept the thing they're into, no. But you continue loving that person and you don't spend all your time trying to think of how you can change them.

Especially frustrating to me is how many people form opinions based on the opinions around them without doing research or even attempting to learn the facts about the subject. And they then stick with that opinion come hell or high water, and anyone who disagrees with them is just sadly, sadly misinformed. I'm thinking of all the kids I know who are having to write pro-choice or pro-equal marriage or anti-war papers for debate classes right now, who preface everything with BUT YOU GUYS THIS ISN'T WHAT I REALLY THINK BECAUSE THAT WOULD CLEARLY BE SILLY AM I RIGHT.

I recently watched a clip from the Today Show in which they allegedly interviewed Jessica Valenti (author of Full Frontal Feminism, The Purity Myth, and several other feminist books I really, really like). The other side of the debate - which is what this turned out to be - was a woman who was intensely into abstinence. She had apparently waited for thirty-something years until she got married, which I have no problem with, depending on her reasoning, but... anyway. The interviewers started the segment off with an incredibly biased statement ("It's a lot easier to give it away than to keep it, a ha ha! What do YOU think, author on this subject and randomly chosen abstinence advocate? WHO WILL AGREE WITH US") and from then on they barely let Jessica talk at all. Clearly, talk shows are not the best venue for your equal chance to talk anyway, but they kept directing all their questions toward the TLW advocate, and eventually the entire thing became the interviewers making (awkward) sex jokes with her.

She actually compared Jessica's sources on abstinence to members of the KKK studying black achievement.

Anyway, what's infuriating is the way that no one listens. No one tries to listen. People decide that they have this opinion and it is RIGHT and they protest and they demonstrate and they never try to learn. So the people who need to hear it most never do. The people who needed to see Milk never did, because they were opposed to the idea on principle. The people who need to read books like The Purity Myth never will. Because people become so stubborn, especially when they're backed by such a huge amount of people who believe what they do.

Here's my opinion:

The point of the Bible is to teach us not to let anything get so big in our field of vision that we lose sight of God. It's when things start taking over our lives that it's a problem with God. But if you focus on losing your heart in Him, and you honestly try but you know that you can't without help, and so you lean even more on God, and you love him as much as you can possibly imagine loving anyone and that shows and without even having to try to convert anyone people start getting closer to God through your presence (and therefore His) in their lives... I feel like that's the point. I don't think he's concerned about your birth control choices or whether you wear your hair long or whether there's some ankle showing, because all that pales in comparison to the huge, huge things that you are and will be doing for His children and His Kingdom. And I don't think the big thing to Him is who you choose to love, because love is the important thing.

I don't know. I'm trying to stay open-minded.

Oh, homeschooling parents.

Growing up homeschooled quite generally means that by the time you get out into the real world, you're totally unprepared. You've been sheltered your whole life by everyone around you, regarding everything. This is especially true for the bubble in which I live. Most kids here are sheltered. The homeschooled kids are whatever's on the farthest side of sheltered - hermits, possibly?

These homeschooled kids then go straight to college, for which they are completely unprepared. They become overwhelmed by the choices and the people and it's all too much. They then do one of two things: they buckle down like the good homeschoolers that they are and get their work done and major in biochemistry and graduate at the top of their class, or they suddenly realize they never had chances like these before and drink until they can no longer stand up.

Maybe I'm weird. I don't know. But I feel like there's a time in high school when your parents should let go enough that you can see some things for yourself. Too many homeschool parents seem to think that they went through everything you can in high school, got hurt themselves, and won't let their children get hurt the same way. Which is great, in theory. But you have to learn things for yourself, or everything's going to be tempting all the time. When you're five and learning to ride a bike, your parents keep you on training wheels for a while and then take them off, with the condition that you ride slowly and be careful on turns. But they know you won't, and you inevitably take off full-tilt one day, hit a bump and end up with some really interesting scars. And you learn to be careful, but you also learn that you can go full-tilt sometimes - you just have to watch for that particular bump.

(I'm stretching a metaphor here, but stick with me.)

Stupid things happen and you get hurt. Your parents probably did they same thing when they were learning to ride their bikes. But that doesn't mean they can just tell you about it, and then keep you away from bikes altogether. Some things have to be learned on your own, and you do eventually have to grow up.

Not everything needs to be tried full-tilt, and I'm not implying it should be. But the way to raise normal, balanced kids is not to keep them from doing absolutely anything their friends want to. Sometimes you have to learn not to stay out until 2 AM the night before a test by doing really poorly on that test. Sometimes you have to learn not to get drunk around people you don't know by seeing pictures of yourself posted on Facebook, and being made fun of for the next two weeks. Sometimes you have to get yourself out of problematic situations. It's part of growing up, and it should be done while you still have the support of being at home and being able to go home and cry and have your mom fix you ice cream.

I'm not saying parents should supply alcohol, or that they should be okay with anything their kid comes up with. But there's a point when you have to accept that your kids are essentially good kids, and that sometimes you have to let go.