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?