Feline Warrior

Yahoo! News - New Pope Stresses Bonds at Installation

This was an Emily Litella moment! I thought it said “Pope stresses BLONDS at Installation”! Oh, I was so worried about the blonds…

*sigh*

Is the Conclave Held in Latin? - Plus, how will the new pope pick a name? By Daniel Engber

Indeed!

I seem to recall that our journals [in the class Race, Gender, and Human Identity] are not supposed to be critical of specific people from class (or was that for Origins?), but I cannot resist. I promise to keep my microscopic look at an individual to a minimum, and to use it as a jumping board to a broader discussion.

The fellow in our class -the outspoken, opinionated one- troubles me. He reminds me of my cat, Lily, who will tuck her little kitty head beneath a table, but leave her kitty butt sticking out. She seems to think that, because she cannot see me, I cannot see her. Of course, that’s preposterous thinking - unless you’re a cat. Lily is a cat, so she’s right on target!

The fellow in class, however, is not a cat. Yet he seems to me to be have stuck his head under a chair rather than enter into a discussion about the effects of sexualizing and objectifying females. What we saw poking out from under the chair was his defiance of a reality, the part he was sure we could not see. Nevertheless, of course, many of us could see it - it was ignorance, defiance, and fear. This is not unusual behavior - I find that people often prefer to do the proverbial sticking-the- fingers-in-the-ears and singing “La-la-la!” loudly routine, rather than simply discuss an issue that might require that person to alter his or her viewpoints one way or another.

The fear, presumably, is that if one enters into such a discussion, and finds that his or her beliefs are challenged, then he or she may have to adjust one’s thinking. That takes effort and time and can be painful and even scary. Is it better, though, to remain in denial about issues, the effects of which have been proven? The idea that someone would choose the head-under-the- chair routine scares me.

Okay, so let’s look at the issue that brought this up: We were shown a number of advertisements that depicted women in various poses, primarily in provocative poses and often in various stages of undress, but some of the images merely mirrored what I consider old-fashioned ideals.

I’ll start with the latter - old-fashioned ideals. There was a Rosie the Riveter look-alike ad for a cleaning product. I don’t recall the exact words of the ad, but the message sent through that ad was in keeping with the ideal that cleaning is women’s work. (Even today on TV commercials, men are saved from their blundering attempts at cleaning by experienced women - never mind that the women are presented as superheroes; they are super heroes of the vacuum cleaner!)

In other images we saw, women’s bodies were used to promote products that we were not even sure of - were these ads for brothels, perhaps? No, it turned out that they were ads for products like cologne, shoes, and other items that were not always even included in the image. In some cases, the message seemed clear: “Buy this car and you will find yourself surrounded by busty babes in bikinis!” (But what if I want to buy the car and I am not a Lesbian or bisexual? What, then, is the appeal to me? More on that later - see the Silent Reaction.)

What do these images tell us? The ever-popular idea, mentioned above, that the buyer of a product will find him- or herself surrounded by just the sort of women shown in the ads is but one message. It implies that those women are “prizes” - these would be the ideals. Otherwise, why use their bodies to promote the products?

What is the result of that practice? Probably nobody truly believes that buying a certain brand of beer will render him or her desirable to women who look just like those in the ads. However, what does happen is a silent encouragement of ideals that already exist, and are perpetuated every day by advertisements, pop stars, and other mediums, such as film, music videos, and print advertising. Does an ad for cologne that shows a woman who appears to be having an orgasm -but fails to show an image of a bottle of the cologne- alter the lives of all women in the United States the minute that it’s printed? Not exactly. However, that ad makes it okay to consider women as sex objects first, and people second - maybe. The ads send the Silent Message that this woman represents the ideal woman -naked, wrinkle- and fat-free, and so uninhibited that she shares her orgasm with whoever happens to be watching.

When women are offered as prizes -imagined or not- for purchasing products, men are not the only ones who take a message away. Girls and women also receive the Silent Message that this woman, who is the ideal woman (because she is being offered as a prize), is how girls and women should be. Not every girl or woman responds in a drastic, immediate manner, of course. However, when we look at the rising numbers of girls who are bulimic and anorexic, and at the younger and younger ages at which they acquire these diseases, we can easily see a Silent Reaction to the Silent Message.

The results of such reactions include lowered self-esteem (because what 12-year old, much less 34-year old, can live up to that image?), self-destructive behavior (bulimia, anorexia, promiscuity, and so on), and a potentially life-long sensation of not being up to snuff.

Why, then, with just this little bit of discussion on the topic, is it so horrible an idea to look at another point of view? Why is it necessary to refuse to hear another’s thoughts on the matter, holding tightly onto one’s own as if one’s life depended upon maintaining that view?

Frankly, one’s life does depend upon maintaining that view, in a way. If one wishes to avoid a feeling of guilt, of perhaps participating in the Silent Message (and by default, the Silent Reaction), one must hold on to those thoughts! I can compare this to white people refusing to discuss white privilege. By discussing it, admitting that it exists, the white person might have to do something about it! Would that require giving away one’s white privilege? Of course not - one cannot give it away. However, by being aware of white privilege, just like being aware of the Silent Message, one can begin to view the other differently. Perhaps step up to the plate when sexist remarks are being made, or when a young female is clearly reacting to the Silent Message in a self-destructive manner. What is cute about a 12-year old girl who dresses like J-Lo? What was cute about Jon Benet Ramsey?

The Silent Message robs females of the opportunity to be people - people with thoughts, ideas, feelings, desires, and needs. The Silent Message promotes age-old ideals about women: they should be subservient to men, be attractive -in whatever is the fashion of the day- and they most definitely should not be so sensitive when being valued as objects rather than as people.

Well, it didn’t take long, did it? I refer to the inevitable results of my blogging habits, that at some point, someone in my circle of friends would be offended.

This is the delicate balance between friendship and politics, between human connections that are real and ideologies that, while real, cannot be embraced. It’s a wavery balance, generally without borders that are easily seen.

The story of my life (no, not the whole enchilada, but a thread of it - the corn tortillas in which the rest is wrapped, say) is one of holding back opinions, beliefs, ideals, and sometimes even activities in order to “keep the peace.” And what is that about? Can I not love friends whose beliefs do not completely jive with my own? Cannot friends love me, even if my beliefs do not completely jive with theirs?

There are some in-laws whose beliefs are vastly different from mine. And I have resisted responding to many emails sent by them because my responses would invariably include links to sites that disprove the propaganda that they send. Their propaganda is of the ultra-conservative, so-called Christian, Republican ilk.

For the record, however, when friends with whom I share basic ideals send propaganda, I also check that out and I do share the correct information with them. Would it please me to be able to say, “Yes! George Bush was allowed into Yale because of his name and money, and here’s proof that his grades had nothing to do with it!”? Of course I would. But when I get stuff like that, I check it out, and if it’s wrong, I let the sender of the email know - there’s no sense in spreading rumors and urban legends of any kind, in my opinion, no matter how much I wish they were true.

Back to the in-laws, though: It would upset my spouse if I responded with correct information to these people’s email propaganda. “Just let them live in their little fantasy world,” he’s said. And I have gone along with that because he’s my spouse, I love him, and I don’t want to ruffle feathers. However, if I say it nowhere else, I will say it here: Their “little fantasy world” effects my REAL world. Getting friends to vote for certain bills or individuals can directly effect the rights of people who are dear to me - hell, my rights, too.

Presumably, by telling these in-laws (politely, even) that I’d discovered that such-and-such is, in fact, untrue, I will start some chain of events that will be unpleasant. I am not sure what those events will be - perhaps only that there may be strife among family members. Maybe it’s just that they’ll think my husband has married a crazy radical woman. And so what if he did? That’s his business. God knows I do not send them links to articles about pharmacists not filling prescriptions because they personally don’t agree with the ’script.

Now, to a more general audience, what can I do? Do I stop and think, “Gee, my friend __ will hate this particular post because s/he supports thus-and-such”? Why do I have to do that?

Part of who I am -a huge part- is my belief in human rights, the Constitution of the United States, and my actions for many years in support of those. Can you love me because I’m funny, creative, thoughtful, and… whatever else it is that I am? I would like to think so. And can I love you because you possess the same qualities? I would like to think that, too, is possible.

Are differences in political alliances such that we lose affection for one-another because of a post in a blog? (Which is, admittedly, an extension of a thought process, an expressed belief system.) Do we allow differences in views to drive wedges between friendships? Or do we use something like a blog to have a converstation about those differences? Or even just say, “Geeze, this friend of mine has some crazy ideas!”?

I have a friend who cannot be friends with people whose political ideologies are different from hers. Therefore, she has no Republican friends. I mentioned once a woman we both know, who is a Republican, and said, “But what about the goodness in her?” and she said, “What goodness can there be in a Republican?” She was serious - she believes, with all her heart and soul, that there can be no goodness in someone who votes Republican.

I do not agree with that. People have different reasons for voting the way that they do. Many Republicans I speak with identify with their party for financial reasons, they say. (These tend to be people who have large sums of money.) Many of their beliefs are not aligned with those of the Christian Coalition - that is, they do not believe that abstinence-only education is best, or that Gay Americans should be denied the financial benefits that other Americans receive… any number of differing opinions exist.

And… I am not uncomfortable telling my Republican friends why I support the causes that I do! Nor do I feel strange asking them about the issues that they support. How am I to understand those friends -as well as their party- without exchanging information and ideas? In fact, how can we expect to understand each other at all if we don’t exchange information and ideas?

I am sorry to upset a friend with my posts. I will be very sad if this person chooses to alter our relationship because of my views. However, the fact remains that questioning policies and events does not make me evil. Stating my opinions of the same does not make me evil. Perhaps it sets me apart from what my friend believes is what is good and true - so maybe, in fact, I am evil in her eyes.

Here’s a quote that I rather like:

“To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That’s just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where it got them.”
-Michael Parenti

Yeah, yeah, I’m almost done. But in my feverish state, I forgot to provide links to the pharmacist piece.

First, you should check this out, articles on mediamatters.org.

Next, visit the conscientious pharmacists on their own web site.

Frankly, they creep me out. “Pharmacists for Life International.” Because, you know, most pharmacists hate life. They are in the business for the fine killin’ they can do. MmHmm.

This poor chap, Erik A. McClave, a Catholic pharmacist, says”I often think of this passage from the New Testament: “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.” (Mark 9:42)”

-Okay, wait. The “little one” should be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck? Eww, how positively Scott Peterson sounding!

NOTE: I misread that. It’s the one who causes the little one that believe in me (who?) to sin, then, who should be cast into the sea, millstone, etc. Still, it’s very mean, isn’t it? And in whom are the “little ones” believing? In the pharmacist? Or in God? Because, frankly (and we’re talking about emergency contraceptives with Erik, by the way), there are just too many assumptions going on here. Why can’t Erik trust that God is going to be in touch with the woman whose doctor (DOCTOR!) has ordered the ’script? As well as the “little one” who is nothing more than an Egg & Sperm McSammich at this point. And why must Erik feel it’s his responsibility to take all of this on? Life is already so complicated, that’s all I’m saying - why mix it up more with stuff that we can’t possibly know while we’re on earth?

McClave goes on to say: “I feel as though I am causing these women to sin by providing them with the means to do so.”

Good grief, Erik, lighten up! Why do I all the time have to remind you crazy kids about that God’s will piece? Hmm? It’s in the book! God gave everyone free will - so these women are exercising theirs. You are exercising yours by being a pharmacist. So do it, fill those damn ’scripts and get crackin’! Look like you’re havin’ fun, while you’re at it! (Because, of course, with your free will, you are invited to go get another job, say, sweeping preschools at night.)

CDC - Influenza (Flu) | Weekly Report: Influenza Summary Update 12, 2004-2005 Season

You’ve been missing me? Find me on the map! I’m the sneezy one! I’ve gotta tell you, I do love that the CDC provides this - I will sleep better knowing that you may now access this crucial information about influenza!

God nose (ha!) it’s been a rough few days for me. Normally, with 4 days off, I’d be writing like a fiend… except for days like these last 4, wherein I pretty much could only sleep. Oh, and blow my nose.

By the way, I must defend Michael Jackson. No, no, not the molestation charges - of course he did it. I’m referring to the mean stories about his nose. Michael J. did NOT overdo the plastic surgery! No - it’s a lie! He had the flu and accidentally rubbed away crucial parts of his nose in the blowing process - just as I have been doing, lo, these past 4 days!

It’s all very tragic, though, don’t you think? I mean, first and foremost, me, sick - that’s enough to ruin anyone’s day. And then one death after another. I just don’t what I’ll do. Of course, I hadn’t gotten over Jerry Orbach’s death, and then Johnnie Cochran up and died (who knew he had a brain tumor?!), and then the pope, and then Saul Bellows. What’s next, people? Hmm? There’s only so much loss I can take in an undefined time period before I snap! ~SNAP!~

Do you think it would be weird to know -KNOW- that when you are dead, millions of people will file past your dead body to look at you? All dolled up, cheeks brightened up a bit, with the fanciest of pope outfits on… but… well, I don’t know if I could handle that. The pressure to leave a gorgeous corpse would be too much for me. (Although, and I mean no disrespect, John Paul II clearly wasn’t worried about that gorgeous corpse stuff. And why should he? He was the POPE, for cryin’ out loud!)

I’m still irritated with Dubya’s yammer about what a great human the pope was. Mostly, though, I am irritated that so many of my fellow Americans actually thought it was a good idea to re-elect Dubya. That’s probably the most irritating thing in my life on any given day. That and people who don’t find it necessary to use turn signals while driving.

In fact, let’s talk about turn signals, shall we? The most important thing to know about turn signals is that every car has them! Yes, a full set! Both ways, left & right! Woohoo! The next most important thing to know about turn signals is that they are a tool that allows you, the driver, to alert drivers all around you of your plans. Yes!

So, then, when you are getting close to that street where you need to turn right, you flip that bad boy, and everyone knows that YOU are going to be turning RIGHT! Yeah, baby! It’s so cool.

But there are those who seem to think that the turn signal somehow assists the car IN the turning process. That is, they turn their signal on AS they are turning the corner. Well, as a tool to alert the other drivers, the turn signal is just about useless when used in this fashion. However, I see it all the time. It would almost be better if those people would just yank their turn signal from their cars and toss them into the wind! “Be free, turn signals!” they can sing in harmony as they zip down the interstate.

Here’s another thing, related to the turn signal issue: There are those who do not actually turn on the signal until they are pulling into the lane, just ahead of you. They hover, speeding up and slowing down, as if you, the person who can let them into that lane, are a mind reader. Now, I do know what they’re up to. But if they don’t turn that turn signal on, let ‘em stay in that other lane until the cows come home! If you LET ME KNOW that you want to get into my lane, I will help you out! Honest - I do it all the time! But if you do that hovery-speedy-uppy-slowy-downy-thing (and then growl and wave your fist at me!), you had better be looking for another way in.

So now we’ve gone from influenza to people dying to turn signals. I can think of no better way to end an evening!

CNN.com - Volunteers to patrol Arizona-Mexico border - Apr 2, 2005

“The idea, according to organizers of the Minuteman Project, is for the volunteers to fan out across 23 miles of the San Pedro Valley to watch the border and report any illegal activity to federal agents — an exercise some law enforcement authorities and others fear could lead to vigilante violence.”

Geeze, ya think? I’ll be keeping mis ojos on this one, just to be on the lookout for wrongdoing. Anytime you get a bunch of white people hunting for brown people, it’s almost a guarantee that there’s trouble a-brewin’. Aye, carumba.

Bush Calls Pope ‘Champion of Human Dignity’

Like he’d fuckin’ know!

CNN.com - Illinois governor: No delays in birth control prescriptions - Apr 1, 2005

Blagojevich’s bio says: “A former golden gloves boxer, Blagojevich is committed to fighting a system that accepts corruption, mediocrity and failure, and pledges to make everyday life better for average working families in Illinois.”

I think I like this guy.

But to the issue, pharmacists and their beliefs, and what Blagojevich has done about it in Illinois (exerpt from the linked article):

“CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) — Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug.”

This has become an issue, pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions based on their (the pharmacists’) “moral beliefs.” What hooey! What’s next, pharmacists who agree with Knucklead Falwell’s statement that AIDS is “God’s punishment for homosexuals” and thus refusing to fill ’scripts for AIDS-related medications?

Nonsense.

I’m starting a new post on this, as I’ve been multi-tasking and have found other sources I’d like to share.

Of course, we’ve known this all along. Try this: play a fun little game here. Sadly, the game gets its funny answers from actual “teaching materials” being used in abstinence-only sex ed programs in the US.

I did a paper last year about the hidden badness of the welfare reform bill, which included state funding for sex ed only if it was abstinence-only sex ed. Now we’re looking at Bush’s budget for 2006, which, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America, “…proposes an additional $38 million for abstinence-only programs, bringing the yearly total to $206 million. Such programs have seen their funding increase more than 50% since 2004, despite the fact that they are largely unproven…”

Said NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan, “He says he’s against abortion, but rather than provide young people with all the facts, he increases funding for unproven abstinence-only programs that censor, mislead, and misinform. His budget would add $38 million to these unproven abstinence-only programs, yet cut $301 million from programs that train doctors at children’s hospitals.”

And really, it’s helpful to bring the children’s hospital piece into the picture, for the sake of garnering sympathy and such (”Ohhh, the poor, sick, ignored children!”), but the point isn’t even what the funding was diverted from so much as it is about a governmental ban on fact-based information that really can be life-saving. (And life-enhancing, -prolonging, and so forth.)

Studies show that abstinence-only sex ed does not work. Don’t get me wrong - I do not advocate teens and pre-teens going out there to hump like bunnies. However, the facts show that giving people MORE information is helpful, not detrimental. Comprehensive sex education provides young people with information about how to say “no,” about how to get and use condoms if they choose to have sex, for example.

I understand wanting to tell young people to wait until they are older to have sex. Maybe even until marriage, if one believes that is most appropriate. There are consequences that teens don’t think about (or are not aware of, or think don’t concern them) -not just pregnancy, not just STDs and HIV- but all of that emotional stuff. Kids whose relationships with their parents are not open enough to discuss sex in a general, even informative, way very likely would not be open enough to talk about the hurt they’re feeling because everyone in school says they’re a ho’, for example.

How wonderful it would be if all parents could teach age-appropriate sex education at home. Ideally, they would include the family (and/or religious) values, yet would make certain that their kids were equipped with enough information that, should they stray from the family’s values, their lives would not be altered forever.

I’m saying… Teach your children the values you want them to believe in - share your values! And at the same time, remember that your children do not live in a vacuum, that there are pressures out there beyond a pushy date or peer pressure, but visual images, societal suggestions about how males and females should look, behave, and so on. Prepare them for that world! Give them all the information, not just some of it.

Another important piece to this abstinence-only education is that it does not address GLBT/Q youth. (GLBT = gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender. Q = Questioning, which refers to those who think they might be GLB or T.) If abstinence-only education does address sexuality issues, I feel certain that it does not do so in a positive, informative manner.

But shouldn’t GLBT/Q youth have comprehensive information? I understand that there are those who feel that being gay (etc.) is anti-Bible, yet this really isn’t a Bible-based country. If it was, we could just use the Bible as our sex ed tool (and maybe that’s what the abstinence-only folks do!), and then women could go out to the desert while menstruating, wear head coverings, and so forth. I digress… Comprehensive sex education enables young people to learn about their own bodies, how to take care of those bodies, as well as allowing GLBT/Q youth to be included in the discussion.

Still on the GLBT/Q topic, currently, most people in that population are not allowed to marry in this country - so telling that population to wait until marriage to have sex doesn’t make sense. (Of course, I don’t doubt that GLBT/Q youth are left out of the abstinence-only sex ed on purpose - because if you are GLBT, waiting until marriage means that you will never have sex! And that is good because the religious-right would prefer that the GLBT crowd not have sex at all.) (”Don’t ask, don’ tell… but really, now that we think about it… just don’t do it at all…”) Young people of all orientations deserve factual information that helps them to develop positive body images and senses of self, as well as the down ‘n dirty facts that will help them make healthy choices regarding sex.

There are parents who are loathe to discuss sex with their children. It’s awkward, difficult, and what do you say? There is information and support out there for parents and caretakers! Check out Advocates for Youth’s Parents’ Sex Ed Center. AFY discusses age-appropriate sex ed, “teachable moments,” and all manner of ways for everyone from parents to grandparents to be educators.

Ideally, the basics would be taught at home - but we know that so many parents do not do this, and would prefer to have the schools do it. If sex education is to be included in the public school curriculum, it must provide comprehensive information that is not only fact-based but also positive in nature.