Trust in modern times

"But, this distrust can be pervasive, spreading to a general skepticism about the truthfulness of their own accounts of their own experiences. If women's feelings aren't really to be trusted, then naturally their recollections of certain things that have happened to them aren't really to be trusted either."

THIS is why we need feminism, ladies. This clever, well-articulated explanation about why when we tell men stuff they tend to pooh-pooh us is a good read, and an even better think.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/damon-young/men-just-dont-trust-women_b_6714280.html

Damon Young, author of this clever-observation essay, writes, "Generally speaking, we (men) do not believe things when they're told to us by women. Well, women other than our mothers or teachers or any other woman who happens to be an established authority figure. Do we think women are pathological liars? No. But, does it generally take longer for us to believe something if a woman tells it to us than it would if a man told us the exact same thing? Definitely!"

Young Mr. Young states precisely what we women know. They absolutely DO NOT TRUST THAT WHAT WE SAY IS WORTHY OF BELIEF (usually as regards the urgency of a matter) until they can back it up with another source. And it is not because they think we are liars. I really believe that.

When a woman tells a man something, it simply doesn't have the gravitas it would have had if a man had said it. We can't really complain either, not if the man is OUR man, and he is a good and loving man. It's our culture, after all. And it's no wonder that we have to work twice as hard to be taken half as seriously.

What we can do is this: We can work for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.

Currently, the only protected right American women have is the right to vote. There is no other protection under the law for women under our Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Which is why we continue to have to read about some man (most recently Fox News' paid doctor) saying that insurance should cost more for women because we have breasts and ovaries. And all he has is a prostate, and a stunning ignorance of his own anatomy. And which is why we can't seem to insist enough that our body is our concern. And which is why we have ignorant people trying to make rules that affect ALL women that are based on their own personal beliefs. And which is why Congress continues to try to play doctor. And which is why those men's rights groups seem to make headway now and again, when we all know they just want us all punished for what their ex did to them. And why we continue to even debate whether or not there is a pay gap. And why so often a claim of rape on a college campus is treated with a healthy dose of suspicion, because they care so deeply about how such a claim could tarnish the young man's reputation and all. When women make up more than 50% of enrollment on most campuses. Sheesh. The list goes on and on. And we keep waiting for men to agree that we need the ERA?

Yes.

We continue to rely on men to tell us the ERA is okay. That we deserve the ERA.

We really need to understand something here. We are more than 50% of the electorate. We have the numbers to declare that we want the ERA passed by Congress. We need Congress to lift the deadline for getting 2/3 of the states to commit to passing the ERA. Then we need to turn THREE STATES. Three states is all that stands between all American women and the equal legal protection of women's rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Some politicians say that women's rights are already protected. Then they proceed to make decisions for all of us they are not qualified to make for the family dog. They say if the ERA passes, then men's rights will somehow be diminished. (Yeah. We live to take the rights of others away.) They say we deserve what we get if we are raped, and that if we were just better women, bad things wouldn't happen to us. Meanwhile, away from the ranch, these same men do whatever they want to, because they are men. Boys will be boys.

Some will say that only women who hate men feel a need to be protected as equals under the law. Some will say it's lesbians trying to trick you into leaving your husbands, or eating your young. (Really) Some will say the ERA will result in women being drafted.

Nonsense. Do not believe anyone who would limit your rights. Ever.

Women need the ERA because we generally share an equal, if not greater, burden than men do. In our families, for sure. But especially when the men have gone. And they do go. Why should we be left to shoulder the burdens when we are not protected as equals under the law? With fewer resources? And with fewer protections?

It's not like we are likely to leave our kids en masse if the ERA is passed. It's not like we intend to gain power so we can screw men over. It's not like we intend to do men any harm whatsoever. So why are they so afraid?  (I refer to those men who have power over our lives legally, btw.) I contend that powerful men, especially those who lean right, don't want us to begin to understand the power that we represent. Would women protect child molesters? No, not generally. Would women seek out bloody, deadly methods to assert their control over other countries? No, not generally. (Unless we are Ann Coulter. Oops, there's my bias showing.) Would women support policies that send others careening off the cliff, or force them to jump the shark, in order to make themselves a little bit more wealthy? No, not generally.

Sure, greed affects all sorts of people. But women do tend to understand that the health of the whole depends on the health of the parts. If workers do well, we all do well. If children do well, our country will do well as they grow. If women do well, well hell, everyone does well. (Reflect on the success of microloans to Indian women {in India}...a loan of $1,000 to a woman is nearly always repaid in full, and results not only in the betterment of that woman's life, but that of her family and her community.)

Women need to stop waiting until that day when men begin to put as much weight into what we say as what other men say. We need to look out for ourselves, NOW. If we force the passage of the ERA, then and only then will we have the footing from which to begin to re-educate men to understand that when we say something, they ought to take us seriously.

Your Congress at Work (May 11 to 15, 2015)

YOUR CONGRESS AT WORK

Week of May 11 to 15, 2015

After taking several months away from writing about Congress' actions, I am back, and I am pissed! I won't be writing about every vote that occurred last week. No matter how dumb many of the bills taken to vote are. I am focusing on two topics: abortion and water.

H.R. 36 - The House is playing doctor!

Because the House of Representatives knows more than anybody else, including scientists and doctors, this 435 member legislative body has decided to play doctor again. In a 242 vote FOR H.R. 36 (vs. 184 against), The House is sending the Senate this GOP-drafted bill that will, if passed by the Senate, outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.

Because the House has decided that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks.

So, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support this belief, and despite the fact that a fetus has NO chance of survival at 20 weeks outside the womb, this Republican led House has decided that what America needs more than so many other things is to be prevented from allowing abortions after 20 weeks. There are exemptions for victims of rape and incest, and to save the mother's life. However, rape victims must receive counseling at least 48 hours before the procedure.

Roe v. Wade holds that abortion is legal up to when a fetus becomes viable (at that time thought to be after 24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy), and after viability to protect the mother's health or life. Roe v. Wade's ruling gave American women the right to make decisions for themselves about when to become a parent, and how many children to have for the first time. For the first time in our history, Roe v. Wade said women have reproductive rights that could be asserted up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, for a woman's personal reasons. For the first time, women weren't accountable to anyone but their God and themselves. 

By and large, women tend to make fairly good decisions for their children and families. Especially when they are supported in doing so. Giving women reproductive autonomy did not result in the termination of more fetuses over time. Abortion is on the decline. But it is a legal and often a medically necessary option.

Now, the House thinks we should have our rights dialed back based on what Republicans think is true.

House Democrats attempted to add a broad health exemption under H.R. 36 that would have enabled women to legally have an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy to protect both their short-term and long-term health. House Republicans, of course, showed their disregard for women by voting this down in a 246 to 181 vote.

To summarize H.R. 36, if you are pregnant, and learn that your pregnancy will create short-term health issues after your 20th week, you are shit out of luck, because the House of Representatives doesn't think you have a right to make your own decisions, for your own reasons. If you're not dying, forget about doing something that could preserve your long-term health. The Republican House barely thinks women who become pregnant from rape or incest deserve to have a choice about carrying that pregnancy to term.

When one factors in the various states that may press criminal charges against women who miscarry, there is just no good reason to get pregnant right now, because you are damned if your health depends on access to abortion, and you may go to jail (in several states) if you miscarry. From personal experience, I know that miscarriages are emotionally painful enough that women should never be faced with jail time for having one.

H.R. 1732 - Who needs clean drinking water, anyway?

This Republican drafted bill proposes to kill a proposed EPA rule designed to protect headwaters, wetlands, and other waters upstream of navigable waters under the 1972 Clean Water Act. Voting to hand the bill over to the Senate, 261 representatives voted for the bill, and 155 voted against.

In a 175 FOR and 241 AGAINST vote, the House defeated a Democratic motion to ensure that new rule-making under H.R. 1732 adequately protects public drinking water and water for agricultural use, while not worsening the drought conditions in the West or the impact of storms and flooding in coastal areas.

With the voting down of Democratic motions meant to amend really bad bills to make them just the tiniest bit better for the U.S., one has to wonder what the ultimate goal is in the Republican-led House of Representatives. Is the goal to simply assert the GOP's will over everything to teach the Dems some lesson? Or is the goal to show America how little good sense the GOP has these days?

Why do we waste our hate on the poor?

Why are people so angry about the pittance that poor people receive from social safety net programs? Poor people are made to jump through hoops to receive their pittance, and still, so many Americans seem to have a problem with the money going toward helping the poor.

Is everyone doing so well that they can't have a bit of compassion for those who aren't doing well enough?

Why are so many up in arms, certain that poor people are just lazy? We have so many words now to describe the poor - Takers. Lazy. Morally defunct. Entitled. Leaches. Lacking ethics. It's as if Americans now fail to understand that most of us are just one financial disaster away from being homeless, or from needing the type of help we so readily decry as going to the Takers.

Think about it. Pretend your car needs a new engine, or you need a new car. Your choices include spending $3,000 on a new engine, or finding a used car to take a chance on, or buying a car and having car payments. Are any of these choices going to be easy for your family, financially?

And what if you suffer an injury that keeps you from working for 5 or 6 months? Or an illness that puts you in the hospital? I know that more Americans are insured, but insurance does not cover everything. In fact, people still go bankrupt despite having insurance.

What happens if you lose your job?

Most of us do not have the recommended savings equivalent to six months of expenses. You know, that absurd amount socked away, untouched, to help you get by until you find your next job? Most of us would LOVE to have a savings account large enough to allow us the time we need to become employed again without having to move, or put the kids in public school, or sell the car we love to downsize to one that is more affordable. Most of us would need to take immediate action to conserve our resources even as we hope and strive to become gainfully employed again.

So I ask again...why are so many Americans angry at the pittance that poor people get from social safety net programs, when so many of us are closer to needing such help than we admit?

The total amount of money going to fund such programs for the poor is tiny as compared to our defense funding, our oil subsidies, heck, smaller than most everything else we spend our taxes on. Wouldn't it make better sense to be mad that already healthy, wealthy oil companies (as an example) are getting such generous corporate welfare? It costs us a hell of a lot more than SNAP does.

DEMENTIA MORE COMMON IN CYNICS

While perusing the October, 2014 issue of Reader's Digest, I found an interesting mention in its World of Medicine section (pp. 60-61). A new study from Finland suggests that trusting people, generally, is a way to stave off dementia. The study of 600 older people found that those who had the highest levels of "cynical distrust" of their fellow man were three times as likely to develop dementia than less jaded study participants.

Those who agreed with statements like "most people would lie to get ahead" and "it's safer to trust no one" are the group who was found to descend into dementia at three times the norm.

The link between a cynical lack of trust in others and dementia held true even when the study controlled for other risk factors, like age and health.

I pondered the meaning of this study for a while. I wondered if levels of distrust, a precursor to dementia, could be "contracted," or caught, by repeated exposure to some media or people...like the motley crew on Fox News, for instance. Then I thought about an America in which a significant number of people could be allowing themselves to be exposed to a dementia-causing agent on a regular basis, and what that might mean for the rest of us.

Wow. Just wow. Picture a future in the U.S. where higher than average numbers of elderly people suffer dementia. Picture the mess when dementia-addled seniors scream about birth certificates and socialism and black presidents being the devil. Who will take care of these hate-filled monsters? An even better question is just how much would caretakers need to be paid, just to stay on the job?

We really must begin weaning our older folks off Fox News now. We need to begin programs that encourage contact with puppies and kittens and babies immediately. Exposure to happy children of all colors playing together, and sweet television shows, like The Golden Girls, Happy Days, Matlock or Lassie are critical to keeping our seniors sane and pleasant to be around.

If we fail to act now, we may be doomed to putting up with mad gangs of muttering, fist-shaking, crotchety old people wandering the streets and making us all miserable.

OH BOY! THE NRA WANTS ME TO JOIN.

Recently, I had the opportunity to receive three issues of three magazines (after ordering a product I saw on TV). Because it was among my choices, and because I thought it might provide inspiration for my writing, I opted for GUNS & AMMO as one of my picks. While I haven't been able to bring myself to read a single page yet, I have finally received an offer the NRA hopes I can't refuse!

To sway me to join, the NRA has sent me an exciting sweepstakes opportunity. If I enter (no membership is required), I could win one of six different hunting trips, or a Dodge Ram truck/Coleman camper/Yamaha ATV, or a gun collection (25 guns, or 12 guns, or 8, or 6, or 5, or 4 guns). All I need to do is put my bullet stickers on the prizes I'd most like to win.

The NRA has even decreased its membership rates - just for me! I can receive a free gift, based on the number of years I wish to join for. Or, in the hopes that I am a true "Second Amendment warrior," I can opt to "put more of my dues toward the fight for freedom."

Ok, this gimmick is silly, but I understand the effort. However, reading the letter that came with my sweepstakes entry papers was pretty chilling, with lines like these:

"Unless you and I stand together it's only a matter of time until we lose our freedom, our heritage, and our American way of life."

"NRA needs you as a fighting, card-carrying member more than ever before. That's because the Second Amendment is the one freedom that gives you and me the power to protect every other freedom in our Bill of Rights."

"Remember, we're fighting powerful gun-hating politicians in Washington, DC and in the state legislatures...anti-gun judges...U.N. global gun-ban diplomats...freedom-hating billionaires...and a corrupt media elite."

And more recently I heard that the NRA is trying desperately to increase the number of registered voters among its membership. Who knew? Second Amendment warriors don't cotton much to voting. I suppose it makes sense. It's far easier to hate the government you refuse to participate in. Now, if we could just educate non-voters about their Constitution (the real one, as opposed to the one we keep hearing Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann refer to), this particular demographic may opt to keep their NRA memberships but get good and mad about how the corporatist agenda is hurting them in their everyday lives.

WHY WE MUST GET OUT THE VOTE THIS NOVEMBER

IS PRIVILEGE THE GATEWAY FLAW?

I have friends who are wealthy. Wait, that's a lie.

I have friends and family who are comfortable, to a greater or lesser degree. Surely, some of them are struggling more than I know. We all struggle; that's life in America these days.

But is it, really, in the world of great privilege?

I guess we mere mortals find it hard to understand a world in which our crimes go unpunished, our character flaws aren't held against us, and our basest instincts and urges don't cost us anything. Boy do I feel sorry for those people! Wait, that is also a lie.

I'm wondering whether a life of privilege is worth protecting? To those who live it, certainly, but how about to the rest of us? To what lengths ought a person go to keep living the life they've become accustomed to? How far will they go?

I propose that it might be important to consider these questions - all of us. I propose that my very comfortable friends think about what the privileged might do to protect the status quo, and to recognize that they themselves are not among the group possessing great privilege. I propose that my less comfortable friends give thought to the politically-motivated policies that affect our lives, even policies they themselves may support, through the lens of suspicion for a little while, and consider that some of the policies they support may not be in their own best interests. Ask yourselves who benefits from the policies the poor are subjected to.

I propose that we all spend a moment to think about how public policy has always been about protecting the assets of the kings of industry. These days, however, public policy is geared more and more toward protecting the assets of even the idle rich, who provide nothing to the rest of society.

It was only when workers began to demand conditions that didn't degrade or abuse them that workers started to have a real shot at living the American Dream (though the phrase was coined later in history than the first worker's movements). It was only after workers won rights to safe workplaces, and outlawed child labor, and demanded a minimum wage, and earned the protection of labor laws to help prevent abusive employment practices, that workers began to enjoy the American Dream. The wealthy, the bosses, the politicians...none of them would have fought for what workers had to win in order for workers to elevate themselves into the middle class.

Somehow, those days are gone. The American Dream has turned into a puff of industrial smoke, in a fire lit by politicians who care nothing for you and me, for the benefit of the captains of industry, or any wealthy donor who helps them into office. But believe this - the relationship between pols and donors is strictly quid pro quo. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

Union busting. Fighting an increase in the minimum wage. Fighting against being held to the same standard as every other employer in providing health benefits. Outsourcing jobs overseas. Moving corporate headquarters offshore to avoid paying taxes to the U.S. Treasury. Limiting hours available to employees. Influencing Congress to direct the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division to providing ever-more guidance to employers about how NOT to steal wages from employees (rather than letting the Wage and Hour Division do its job to go after such employers for recompense on behalf of wronged employees).

These are all symptoms of a world in which there is such utter privilege for some, and none for the rest of us. These symptoms are NOT a reality that we must embrace. America has no caste system, and we are NOT members of the feudal system.

These issues, and so many more, are why it is important to VOTE in the mid-term elections. It is our duty to protect the way of life WE benefit from, and the fundamental truth is that our politicians have been serving the wrong masters for far too long. If regular, ordinary Americans don't vote to put the brakes on our corporate-supporting, wealth-loving lawmakers, we will get what we deserve, forever doomed to a life of making ends meet (because employers have all the power), to struggling daily to educate and feed and care for our families (because the wealthy have all the power), and to feeling more and more disenfranchised from OUR government (because the politicians owe the powerful, and take our power from us).

SUPREME'S BUFFER ZONE MORE IMPORTANT TO NATION THAN WOMEN'S RIGHTS

Justice Roberts (photo courtesy of Business Week).

Justice Roberts, in response to the question of whether it is problematic to enjoy a 98 foot buffer zone around the Supreme Court while striking down a 35 foot buffer zone for women entering or leaving a women's health clinic, said, not at all, and that it "prevents the appearance of the court as a body swayed by external influence."

He characterizes abortion clinic protesters not as protesters, but as "counselors who seek to engage in personal, caring, consensual conversations with women." And it's obvious, isn't it, that one cannot have a personal, caring, consensual conversation from 35 feet away?

I am disgusted by Roberts' lack of rational thought. He clearly disregarded everything said during arguments in defense of the buffer zone. He clearly thought he knew better, and was more informed of the reality of what women endure when trying to access a women's health clinic than he is. Roberts' statements also make clear his antipathy for women, and for a woman to make a decision about her reproductive health and destiny. Does he think that allowing "sidewalk counselors" (who "advocate" against baby killing with horrid pictures and harsh words of damnation) access to women seeking birth control is going to SWAY them? If so, it is apparent he believes that women need to be swayed.

With his statements, Roberts expresses his underlying belief that women are incapable of acting in their own best interests, or staying the course they've chosen. Women must be both stupid and impressionable. By assuming that protesters intend to engage in meaningful and consensual conversations, and that it may persuade a woman to change her mind about seeking an abortion, he assumes the best about protesters and the worst about women.

After the birth of my son, I had several miscarriages. The last one was particularly awful because my body did not reject the non-viable fetus. That's right. I had a fetus in my womb that was not alive. No fetal heartbeat. My doctor told me my body would reject it, but it wasn't happening. I called the doctor about two weeks later to schedule a D&C (also known as an abortion). My husband and I were sent to the same clinic that performs abortions in our area.

I think it's safe to say my procedure was NOT an abortion in the common use of the word. I think it's safe to say the procedure was medically necessary to prevent my body from going through a complete pregnancy which, because the fetus was dead, was not healthy for me (especially because the birth of my son resulted in primary high blood pressure - 180/120 - stroke numbers). 

Yet, as we walked to the entrance, protesters pressed horrible pictures into my hands; they hollered at me and my husband; they tried to block our ingress to the building bodily, and they moralized. Oh, how they moralized! These people thought they had a right to tell us we were bad people for killing our baby, even though they had absolutely no idea why we were there that day.

So, it is from personal experience that I can assure readers that those people who tried to intimidate me, those fools who knew nothing about me or my circumstances, those aggressive, mean-spirited people trying to impose their will on me, had NO relation to caring people whatsoever. There was no indication of any wish to provide counsel or communicate facts or even beliefs held dear. Their goal was to stop me from entering that building at any cost. They did not care about my doing the "right thing," only that they prevented me from doing the "wrong thing." They are the most self-centered, illogical, self-righteous idiots I have ever seen. They do not protest so much as delight in causing other humans pain and misery. It is my considered opinion that such protesters only feel like it's been a good day when they know they've made women cry, and men angry, and made several people lose their cool.

(I felt pity for any teenage girl trying to pass through the gauntlet I endured. To think she might have to visit the clinic more than once while addressing her gynecological health was outrageous. More than one visit is often necessary if dealing with birth control, STD's, pre-natal appointments, follow-up exams . . . so many things other than abortion.)

As mentioned, my fetus was dead already. Sure, the protesters had no idea. But isn't that the point? That I have a right to seek medical care for reasons of my own, without being harassed and abused by strangers? That if they really, really care about me, and want to counsel me, they would not have behaved with such extreme hostility?

Those people enjoyed my distress, and were tickled to think they had provoked it.

My ugly ordeal, from learning my baby was not going to be born, that my son wasn't going to have a little sister or brother, to facing the bitter hatred of the protesters, occurred before Hill v. Colorado, the first case upholding the notion of an 8 foot buffer zone around women's health clinics. Looking back to that period, I recall murders of abortion doctors and nurses, violence by protesters, and the real worry that women's rights were being completely overlooked. I would have loved being allowed the dignity 8 feet can provide as I lived through that day.

I honestly believe that my right to travel to and from a medical facility are at least as important as the right of a Supreme Court Justice to travel to and from their place of work. I think the staff of women's health clinics have just as much a right to get to their place of work as the Justices do. It is ONLY the entitled ego of Justice Roberts that tells him his right is greater than the rights of others to do the same thing -- to go to work unmolested . . . to live their lives unmolested.

Dear Justice Roberts, 

Climb down off your gilded pedestal and rejoin the world, please, and start looking out for the people of the country. We ought to be able to rely on you to think of the greater good, and not your own biases, when considering any issue of our rights. We ought to be able to rely on you to ferret out facts, if needed, rather than being swayed by emotions and personal beliefs. Worse still, you give the appearance of having been SWAYED by corporate interests, and it pisses us off.

Sincerely,

America