Dance: To Travel or Not to Travel

Kelly Porter - Words to Lindy Hoppers
My html skills are lacking when it comes to embedding non-Youtube Videos, but the above video made the circuits this past week, and was posted, re-posted and discussed.

I have to say, she really hits home on this issue.

I moved to this city nearly 2 years ago, because I was visiting on a regular basis for any amount of dancing to be had. I felt that it was time to strike out for new professional and personal opportunities, and the dance community was a large part of that. But I was tired. I was tired of always racking up miles on my car, eating bad fast food en route to dances, sleeping in sleeping bags on floors, and having to choose between dance (in another city) and life. It's fun to be the unknown element for a little while, but nice to recognize familiar faces.


I love travel, I love meeting new people, but when it comes down to it, what I really want in a scene is to be able to call up a few dancers, and hit the local blues bar. We're inundated with good music, every single night of the week, so why should I need to travel to have a decent dance?

Yet, travel is seen as a sign of wanting to improve, of being 'serious' about your dance, which strikes me as true to a point. Dancing with better or different dancers will improve your overall social dancing, by allowing you to experience different styles of dance. However, lessons, practicing solo movement (hips challenge, solo jazz, etc...) or sitting down with a partner to analyze your swingouts will also improve your dancing.

Coming from a scene that lacked the infrastructure, I know that I'm fortunate to be in a location that affords me good, experienced teachers with a variety of perspectives.

And while I commiserate with a follow who wished for a practice partner to whip her into shape, instead of the other way around, I still think that investing in your own scene yields the best returns. I like practicing with the people around me, to get our scene to be the destination others want to visit, rather than perpetually fleeing for other scenes.

The Cost and Care of Essential Femininity

This week, in response to a lot of commotion about women's rights over their reproduction, Jezebel posted an interesting run-down of costs of womanhood. As a counterpart to the men who complain about discounts for female drivers and ladies' nights affording women discounted drinks and club entry, the article noted exactly how much an average woman spends on her fertility.

 Given the national debate regarding birth control coverage, it's increasingly clear that many people have no idea how much it costs it to own a vagina — folks are getting up in arms about the idea that the pill could set uninsured women back about $1000 a year, but in the grand scheme of things, that's nothing. Do you even know just how much you're shelling out for your clam? Were you aware of the fact that in your 20s alone, you will spend over $26,000 on vaginal maintenance? Herewith, we do the math on just how much that cooter is costing you.

[Via Jezebel.com]
It all puts me in mind of the soul song, "A Woman's Worth." I remember getting the talk from mom, and wondering exactly what kind of a raw deal I was signed up for. Headaches and bleeding every month? Crazy hormones? Not even counting all the problems with pregnancy! No wonder it was described as a curse.

While I'm grateful to developments in the paper products industry for freeing us from The Red Tent and using washcloths to stem the tide, we haven't progressed much further from that. Women still have a lot of money to spend on their basic maintenance, excluding the fashion trends that make our clothes go out of style sooner, and the push for a 'serious business woman' to look like a fashion model. One friend was hired for her first real job, and told in the interview, that she needed to spend her first few paychecks on clothes. Not transportation, food, or rent. CLOTHES. 

The Atlantic also notes that women have additional costs, and Jezebel's list is by no means exhaustive:

While Morrissey doesn't note this specifically, such health visits could also include procedures like colposcopies and LEEPs, biopsies of various female parts, and so on—all of which, even if a woman is insured, add up with co-pays and costs beyond what insurance covers.

[Via The Atlantic Wire]

As a recipient of those extra procedures and tests, can I just point out how not having insurance is one of my biggest fears? In fact, after a visit to the doctor lead my common cold to cost as much with insurance as without it (thank you co-pays), the insurance debacle, err... debate is really the one that shapes my generation.

Find a lump, get hit by a bus, sneeze a little too hard, but without insurance you're essentially in a Third World Country. At least there, you'd have chickens to barter with. Maybe a goat if you needed surgery.

Europe is scratching its head over the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down President Obama's signature legislative achievement. As the judiciary and the Obama administration trade legal barbs over the high court's authority, the idea that health care coverage, largely considered a universal right in Europe, could be deemed an affront to liberty is baffling.

 [Via The Atlantic Wire]

In a place where I didn't have to worry about filing bankruptcy for health care costs, I'd be more okay with spending a few extra dimes on work clothes. All of this makes me think that a nice Nordic country would be a wonderful place to bear and raise children. Health care, good education and decent holidays? Sign me up!

Porch Society vs. Backyard Society

As a typical Midwesterner, I'm a firm believer that if we have not had a long enough or hard enough winter, we will pay for it. But there is something about 80 degree weather in March that just brightens everything and makes me want to be outdoors as much as possible for as long as possible.

It also makes me miss having a porch. Sitting on the porch, watching the people amble by, dogs and babies in tow, in inextricably linked to my idea of a relaxing summer evening. One of the best things about living in an old brownstone is having a porch, and trading that for the modern backyard seems a poor bargain, especially in urban areas where green spaces are already limited.

Also, the main thing that I've noticed about porches instead of backyards, is that porches and people using the porches tend to promote a safer walking space for pedestrians. Research seems to back that up, but in a different way

"Five years after the program started, the Police Foundation, in Washington, D.C., published an evaluation of the foot-patrol project. Based on its analysis of a carefully controlled experiment carried out chiefly in Newark, the foundation concluded, to the surprise of hardly anyone, that foot patrol had not reduced crime rates. But residents of the foot patrolled neighborhoods seemed to feel more secure than persons in other areas, tended to believe that crime had been reduced, and seemed to take fewer steps to protect themselves from crime (staying at home with the doors locked, for example). Moreover, citizens in the foot-patrol areas had a more favorable opinion of the police than did those living elsewhere. And officers walking beats had higher morale, greater job satisfaction, and a more favorable attitude toward citizens in their neighborhoods than did officers assigned to patrol cars."

Via The Atlantic, Broken Windows]

Urban areas are always faced with the challenges of maintaining a sense of security in a dense, populated region. One of the worst side effects of the warm weather, is that for the first few days, crime skyrockets. Yet, this article makes a lot of sense. When you see other people on the street, you are more likely to be out on the street yourself, and knowing that a policeman regularly walks the beat and knows the neighborhood, makes the neighborhood feel safer. If you called for help, someone would see and respond. This is something that I appreciate as a pedestrian - walking in an area where I am not the only person on the street.


Others claim that removing lead from the gasoline and housing is what caused the safety of urban neighborhoods:

Nevin acknowledges that crime rates are rising in some parts of the United States after years of decline, but he points out that crime is falling in other places and is still low overall by historical measures. Also, the biggest reductions in lead poisoning took place by the mid-1980s, which may explain why reductions in crime might have tapered off by 2005. Lastly, he argues that older, recidivist offenders -- who were exposed to lead as toddlers three or four decades ago -- are increasingly accounting for much of the violent crime.

Nevin's finding may even account for phenomena he did not set out to address. His theory addresses why rates of violent crime among black adolescents from inner-city neighborhoods have declined faster than the overall crime rate -- lead amelioration programs had the biggest impact on the urban poor. Children in inner-city neighborhoods were the ones most likely to be poisoned by lead, because they were more likely to live in substandard housing that had lead paint and because public housing projects were often situated near highways.

Chicago's Robert Taylor Homes, for example, were built over the Dan Ryan Expressway, with 150,000 cars going by each day. Eighteen years after the project opened in 1962, one study found that its residents were 22 times more likely to be murderers than people living elsewhere in Chicago.

Nevin's finding implies a double tragedy for America's inner cities: Thousands of children in these neighborhoods were poisoned by lead in the first three quarters of the last century. Large numbers of them then became the targets, in the last quarter, of Giuliani-style law enforcement policies.

[Via The Washington Post]

Whether its less lead or more cops walking the beat, I can support a safer urban environment.

The Neg: Models are People too

[Via xkcd.com]

Ever since The Game sent a press-release copy of their book to my alma mater's gender studies department, I've been intrigued by the whole idea that there are specific tips to be seen as an alpha male to Marialpha females. Moreover, the idea that women who are tired of compliments will respond positively to negs aka, back-handed compliments.

Personally, I don't find myself to be very fond of the idea of being preyed upon by men who have nothing interesting to talk about other than insulting me, but that might just be me.

I had a conversation over the weekend about the whole idea of negging a woman to get her attention. The couple was relaying how they originally met, and how the female was immune to being hit on, so once the guy played it cool and got to know her on a deeper level, she was captivated. One of the listeners took offense to this story, and responded that she and her friends (who were all 10s, according to her) were constantly barraged by men's advances and so she only paid attention to very assertive men. The male of the couple tried to explain that he hadn't done quite the same thing, but she responded to his assertions, calling them negs, when they appeared to be closer to a better grounding for her ego.


The whole incident brings me back to the idea that: Models are people too. In fact, one dear and beautiful friend was verbally assaulted on a movie set, when the director commanded her to take off her clothes, right there in front of everyone. She was an extra, quite literally the low-woman on the totem pole, but she refused. He told her that she wasn't professional and she left the set. As anyone who has worked in the industry knows, any sort of clothing removal would be explicitly negotiated in the contract prior to signing, and future contracts are always negotiated by the agency. What happened in this event was that a director got a big head and decided to verbally abuse an extra. I fully support the film industry, but I do not support this flagrant misuse of an actress.

She's an absolutely beautiful person inside and out, but would never desire to be seen as an object or less of a person. Which is the main point-  that regardless of your exterior beauty, your interior character is the means for which you will be judged.

So many men and women seem to hold models onto a pedestal, as if they can do no evil nor wrong. I find this to be very flawed logic.Perhaps I'm simply too much of a Midwesterner for this, but I was raised that one should be modest about your talents and abilities. If you truly have talent, then people will acknowledge this without your effort. Telling others that you are the simply the best will only lead to resentment. And hubris will only lead to disaster.

Which brings me back to the whole idea of the neg - men seeking to break through a woman's barrier by insulting them. It is so foreign to me.Why would you want a partner that is merely your prey? Why would you pay attention to a man who merely seeks to have you as his trophy for an evening? How is any of this the basis for any sort of a healthy relationship, much less a lasting relationship?

Marilyn Monroe seems to be the current diva-role model, but when I look at how troubled and sad she truly was, I have to wonder if all of the attention only served to dim her light before its time. People have criteria for who they would like to date, but the neg is not the best mating strategy to pursue a partner that you would like to be with for more than one night. It will tarnish your trophy, until the morning light seems to bring everything into a focus too clear for your eyes to stand.

The Followers Manifesto

 [Photo from goslinglindyhops.tumblr.com]

 I started swing dancing in the summer of 2007. It was a goal that I had set for the summer, along with an expansive book list, mastery of several languages, and solving world hunger. All totally attainable things, right? Of course, right!

I was on a temporary dance hiatus at the time. I grew up dancing solo and in teams, but outside of random musicals, had never experimented in partner dancing. But many of my feminist friends have trouble inhabiting a dance that came from a time when women had only just gotten the right to vote. They see taking on the followers role as being passive and not contributing to the dance itself.

As a dancer who gave up her ballerina dreams due to beginning at the ripe old age of 8, dancing had always been something that I did for myself, alone or with a team who danced the exact same moves to the music. It was cooperative, in a way that made you a team member not a spontaneous contributor. It was only much later that I began to learn dance as a conversation, instead of dance as a teammate.

So, to start off, let's consider a chart, that I believe to be remarkably accurate:

[Via Addicted2Salsa]

Leading is hard. Following is hard. But they are harder at different points due to the nature of the role. It just makes for a different learning curve, rather than assuming that one is inherently more difficult. Followers learn how to move themselves and listen. Leads learn to move themselves, and communicate their movements to their partners. But learning the opposite role has the potential to break through the plateau, which is especially valuable.

Which brings us to:

Le Manifesto

1. When not injured nor exhausted, I will do my best to say yes to every lead, regardless of skill level. When the lead vs. follower ratio is off-balance, I will seek out likely leads and ask for dances. Likely-looking leads are often easy to spot: shoes on, glancing around the dance floor, open posture. Inviting is part of the reciprocal nature of the dance, by making it more social. This exempts dancers who have previously caused injury. If you have hurt me physically or emotionally in the past, I have the right to refuse any dance.

This one is especially important when you're the newcomer to the scene. When I visited Dallas, it was interesting to watch the social dynamics, as the 'unknown quantity.' Having not set foot in the city's dance scene before, nobody who asked me to dance knew what to expect until they either danced with me or saw me dance with someone else. But being the unknown also gave me the ability to ask anyone. Being the unknown element gave me a chance to truly follow, instead of relying on a shared bit of choreography that we learned at a class together. It helped me learn different cues, and what they could mean in this shared time and space.

Yet, even though we encourage people to dance with all levels of dancers, injury lasts a long time. One of the hardest personal times came when during a theater warm-up game, a boy knocked into me, stepped on my foot and broke it, taking me out of the performance that night. And onto crutches for the next 2 months. Since most of my social life revolved around dancing and friends at dances (social and other), it was a very difficult time to simply get around. It is never worth it to dance with someone who hurts you.

2. During the dance, I will listen to the lead, and respond to their suggestions. I will take each suggestion and follow it to the best of my capability. If left room for improv and my own remarks, I will put them to good use, but the integrity of the following won't be changed. I may add movements inside the rhythm, but I will not attempt to establish my own rhythm, and will maintain the rhythm set by the lead.

3. After the dance is completed, I will always smile and say thank you. It's common courtesy, people. Yes, some people are intimidating, or you intimidate them. It happens. But being courteous and polite will go far.


This manifesto is open to change, depending on the circumstances and growth of said dancers. But it's a place to start.

"You can't tell people what they want to hear if you also want to tell the truth"

-Hold Steady, Soft in the Center

James Fallows recently did an excellent piece on President Obama, that explored a lot of the mindset behind much of his decision-making, one of the things that struck me is how miffed people appear to be because he is more reserved.

    It turns out that Obama is sufficiently aware of and sensitive about his Mr. Spock–like image to have called it the “biggest misconception” about him in a year-end interview with Barbara Walters on ABC in December. It was entirely wrong, he said, for the public to think of him as “being detached, or Spock-like, or very analytical. People who know me know that I am a softie. I mean, stuff can choke me up very easily. The challenge for me is that in this job … people want you to be very demonstrative in your emotions. And if you’re not sort of showing it in a very theatrical way, then somehow it doesn’t translate over the screen.”
        Whatever he thinks his real emotional makeup might be, the challenge of “showing it,” and translating it over the screen, affects his ability to lead. As an explainer of ideas through rhetoric, Obama has few recent peers. And at least twice in the past four years, he has changed national opinion, and politically saved himself, through the emotional content of his words and presence. Once was in March 2008, when the media storm about his radical-sounding pastor, Jeremiah “God Damn America!” Wright, threatened to end his candidacy. Then Obama responded with his speech in Philadelphia about the meaning of race in America—which at least for a while, and for at least enough of the electorate to let him survive, made his mixed-race heritage a symbol not of threatening otherness but of the country’s true nature. Then, in January of last year, his party’s historic rout during the midterm elections had made Obama seem as shrunken and defeated a figure as Bill Clinton had seemed after his midterm losses 16 years before. But even his usual opponents hailed Obama’s speech in Tucson after the horrific shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords and others, for its sober but healing emotional power. One conservative blog, Power Line, said it was a “brilliant, spellbinding, and fitting speech”; John Podhoretz, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, wrote in the New York Post that it was “beautiful and moving and powerful.” Politically, this is when Obama seemed to return to life after the midterm disaster.

[Via  The Atlantic, Obama, Explained]

I'm not sure that I entirely buy the idea of Obama as so cold. He has two healthy, loving daughters, and wonderful strong wife, and is the poster-family for the typical American family. No one who is that good with children is a cold person or could be emotionally dead inside. At that point, you'd have marital scandals and rebellious children. Thankfully, this administration has been free of such personal scandals, which is a bit of a relief. It's nice to have a president who is focusing on leading the country in an eloquent and intelligent way, instead of fraught with personal drama.

I also think that this is a catch-22 for the President, similar to the Queen Mother's response to Diana's funeral. Many argued that if she didn't cry, she would be seen as heartless and cold. If she did cry, she would be seen as too weak to be capable of running the country. In the end, her reserved dabbing of tears was seen as the only possible compromise.

But this story from Obama's childhood is very illuminating:

     Over lunch, Barry, who was 9 at the time, sat at the dining table and listened intently but did not speak. When he asked to be excused, Ann directed him to ask the hostess for permission. Permission granted, he got down on the floor and played with Bryant’s son, who was 13 months old. After lunch, the group took a walk, with Barry running ahead. A flock of Indonesian children began lobbing rocks in his direction. They ducked behind a wall and shouted racial epithets. He seemed unfazed, dancing around as though playing dodge ball “with unseen players,” Bryant said. Ann did not react. Assuming she must not have understood the words, Bryant offered to intervene. “No, he’s O.K.,” Ann said. “He’s used to it.”
     “We were floored that she’d bring a half-black child to Indonesia, knowing the disrespect they have for blacks,” Bryant said. At the same time, she admired Ann for teaching her boy to be fearless. A child in Indonesia needed to be raised that way — for self-preservation, Bryant decided. Ann also seemed to be teaching Barry respect. He had all the politeness that Indonesian children displayed toward their parents. He seemed to be learning Indonesian ways.
     “I think this is one reason he’s so halus,” Bryant said of the pres­ident, using the Indonesian adjective that means “polite, refined, or courteous,” referring to qualities some see as distinctively Javanese. “He has the manners of Asians and the ways of Americans — being halus, being patient, calm, a good listener. If you’re not a good listener in Indonesia, you’d better leave.”

 [Via the New York Times, Obama's Young Mother Abroad]

I think it's an important insight of how the qualities generally associated with masculinity (emotionless, strong sturdy oak) are much more constricting than the skills it takes to be a good father and husband, or even the skills that it takes to be a good President. When I envision an ideal President, skills such as intelligence, listening, eloquence and inner strength of character rank higher than those of being buddy-buddy with everyone.

Growing up in a cross-cultural home makes you question if any one system is the correct way of being, especially when it comes to gender roles. Obama's experience in Indonesia undoubtedly shaped his cool, calm and collected personality, but isn't that the sort of person you'd want running the country?

Bechdel and women's stories

The above video explains a lot of the still-present under-representation of women in the media, yet one of the questions that has troubled people for a long time is: How do we fix it?

We've known for a long time that film is not the only way women are under-represented, yet it isn't the only media form in which women are seen to be in the minority.

The Atlantic is one of my favorite online news sources, yet, while they have 7 female editors and 9 male editors, even they are not exempt from study.

[via The 2011 Count]

Germany seems to be answering the lack of female representation in their own way: with a truly German quota system. (I do love my German friends, but it is amusing how often we react in very specific cultural ways. You'd never catch a Chilean with a quota system!)

 "Sandberg's key points are that there really is a problem, that it's not because of lack of female potential, and that women need to stop shooting themselves in the foot -- no more drawing back ten years early in anticipation of childbearing, for instance. Equally, though, she lists areas where we, as a society, need to improve. We need more equitable division of labor in the home, for example, if we want to see more equitable division of honors in the boardroom.

Most of Sandberg's musings, however, are cultural, and her calls to action are on an individual level. "I don't have the right answer. I don't even have it for myself," says Sandberg early on, noting that a mother's choices are personal and tricky. "My talk today is about what the messages are if you do want to stay in the workforce."

Right now in Germany, the talk has pole-vaulted over the personal and the cultural to the legal. What Labor Minister Ursula von der Leyen wants, and what she frankly seems pretty frustrated not yet to have gotten, going by her remarks to German television, are legally binding quotas."

 [Via The Atlantic, A German Idea to Break the Corporate Glass Ceiling: Gender Quotas]

The quota system is the response to the low rate of females in the upper levels of finance and media. 

The Atlantic's Heather Horn isn't quite so keen on a similar idea happening in the U.S.

I'm pretty wary of gender quotas for a number of reasons. The principle of equal protection under the law, enshrined in the U.S. in the Fourteenth Amendment, has a lot going for it, and quotas, even when set internally, are one hell of a mess where equal protection is concerned. Though the aim is to correct an injustice, and the assumption is that the highly qualified women who have previously been passed over will now get the jobs they, by merit, deserve, that's not necessarily the way it plays out.

Quotas demand that companies hire female workers whether they're the best hires or not; and, in cases where they're not the best hires, absolutely no one wins. Spare me the argument that it at least accustoms people to having women in charge: a woman in a position she didn't earn builds resentment and only reinforces the nasty assumptions that the hire was supposed to correct in the first place. The answer to unmerited male hires isn't to encourage unmerited female hires.

And let's consider the message that long-term quotas would send. Do we really want a younger generation to get the impression that women need protection from the free market? And even if you buy the current argument for quotas, what does it say that they're being set at 30 percent, rather than 50?

 [Via The Atlantic, What the World Can Learn From Germany's Debate Over Gender Quotas]

 I'm prone to agree with her. I don't want people to assume that the only reason I have my position is because I am the 'diversity hire' instead of the best candidate for the position. I do believe that we should definitely pursue diversity in hiring, especially in the areas of media and professorship.


I think there are many more factors that go into these decisions. Finance is a profession that is often seen as a 70-hour work week, which would prove prohibitive to anyone who might desire a reasonable balance of work-life. From my conversations with female professors, many cited that because they are female, they get swamped with obligations to be the female representative on many boards and associations, and required to do so. Their male colleagues, even those with similar qualifications in the realm of gender studies, are not required to do so. 


I'm also not inclined to believe that simply because a person is of a certain race, sexual orientation or gender, it lessens their voice. I took a sociology course in Diversity and Inequality from a white, heterosexual male professor, but his research and insight into the field of African American Studies and Gender Studies had made him wonderfully insightful.


Rather than quotas, I think that we should focus more on mentoring women in finance, the media, and universities. Have a way for them to see what needs to be done to scale the ladder and networks available for them to do so. We have already made many strides in education, but still have a ways to go. It might not be the sole solution, but its definitely a good way to begin.

More on Women's Agency and Human Rights

In the last post, I spoke a bit about women's rights to control their own contraception, which is currently under debate.

Now, for a place where women have no control over their lives or their bodies:

"Shakila, 8 at the time, was drifting off to sleep when a group of men carrying AK-47s barged in through the door. She recalls that they complained, as they dragged her off into the darkness, about how their family had been dishonored and about how they had not been paid....Shakila’s case is unusual both because she managed to escape and because she and her family agreed to share their plight with an outsider. The reaction of the girl’s father to the abduction also illustrates the difficulty in trying to change such a deeply rooted cultural practice: he expressed fury that she was abducted because, he said, he had already promised her in marriage to someone else."
-NYTimes, "Afghan Girls are Penalized for Elders' Misdeeds" 

The local society justifies the trading because its seen as a way to stabilize family feuds, ya know, barring the whole kidnapping and forced marriage part.They argue that the girl, who was considered a burden on her parents will suddenly transform to a valuable asset, now that she has married a man much her senior, but reports differ, and the women are commonly beaten into submission and treated lower than servants. Her parents cannot take her back, now that she is 'damaged goods' and would violate the terms of using her as their debt payment. The local government outlaws the practice, but has little power to enforce, and ramifications are serious if you contact outsiders to plead your case.

This story is not the worst of its kind, but it reminds us that in many places, being female means lacking the agency for your own life decisions and being someone's property.

 It would be easy to dismiss the current debate over contraception as isolated incidents, but they are part of a larger, more pandemic problem where women are considered unworthy of equal treatment.

"Don't be defeatist, dear, it's very middle class."

via the Dowager Countess, Downton Abbey

While I might resemble my mother in my love for the BBC series, Downton Abbey is a unique period piece on an era no-longer accessible to us. The last WWI veterans have only recently passed, being barely legal to serve at the end of the war.

[images originally posted on Arrested Downton]


It would be easy to just make it a nostalgic tribute, but the BBC goes much further, into investigating some of the changes this war brought about.

[Spoiler alert for those who haven't reached the end of Season 2 yet]

 An interesting character case is the now-fallen from grace Ethel, who was caught in an affair with an army officer, dismissed, pregnant, and currently struggling to make her child's grandparents recognize their now-deceased son's child. Before the days of paternity testing, before the days of birth control, pregnancy and no husband (dead or alive) means that Ethel is unable to work, living on handouts, and very frightened of the future.

While we're not sure where season 3 will take Ethel, now that she has refused her baby daddy's parents' offer to take the child off her hands, the situation does shed curious light on the forgetful nature of the contraception debate now taking place, which has dominated the American news cycle.

Birth control has been equated to abortion, called a religious freedom issue that does not concern women, and considered just cause to sue the government.

Ok, first things first.

1. Women have babies, not men. In societies where women have their children later, and have a say in their reproductive health, they live longer, and healthier, and produce healthier children. It's a sign of the well-being of an entire country.

2. Prior to the birth control we have today, most women were seen as having to suffer for having sex whatsoever, i.e. Ethel. It was common for women to be cast out of society, impoverished and marginalized for getting pregnant out of wedlock. Darling founding father Jefferson had several illegitimate children with his slaves, for example. Motherhood was not as saintly until women had the options to delay or prevent motherhood. That Ethel is blamed for her sins, while the officer is not forced to lift a finger to acknowledge his child, was a very real reality for many poorer women.

3. The legislation is for employers, and employers are held to certain standards. That this is a 'war on religious freedom' is a false claim. This is merely closing the gap on a few regulations that had already existed for decades. Choosing what religion to follow is not tantamount to having an employer decide what benefits you are eligible for. In an era of great religious diversity, its important that we have a common denominator for a standard of health. Currently, employers are the main way for Americans to receive health care. But, if a Christian Scientist employer decided to not offer health care to their employees, because of their religious beliefs, we wouldn't bat an eye at requiring them to comply. Because this issue has to deal with what happens in people's bedrooms and during an election year, it's become a hot-button issue.

4. Most Catholics don't see birth control as affecting their religious beliefs. The Bishops haven't changed their position, yet, the size of families has shrunk in the past few generations.
"Most Catholics — meaning, to be more precise, people who were raised Catholic or converted as adults and continue to take church teachings and practices seriously — now reserve the right to reject doctrines insisted on by their bishops and to interpret in their own way the doctrines that they do accept.  This is above all true in matters of sexual morality, especially birth control, where the majority of Catholics have concluded that the teachings of the bishops do not apply to them.  Such “reservations” are an essential constraint on the authority of the bishops."
-Source: NYT, "Birth Control, Bishops and Religious Authority"

This issue is primarily a women's health issue, that directly affects women's quality of life. One has only to look at the Duggar family (19 children! OMG!) and remember that it wasn't so long ago that women had ridiculous amounts of children, most of whom didn't survive, some of whom cost the mother her life. Those who survived, and couldn't be afforded were sent to orphanages, with horrible conditions. Illegitimate children were more likely to be sent to baby farms, the infanticide of said children was a hanging offense. Though dark, it was part of a long history of drastic and grisly measures (like ancient Roman mothers, when children were selected by gender) that people have taken when having no other options.

But that all changed when women are allowed to limit their fertility.  It is very old history, even if parts were forgotten, but still makes the news. In an era where we're facing shortages of natural resources, it makes sense to not follow the command to Noah: "Be fruitful and multiply." 7 billion people on the planet. Check, and check. Now, about that whole taking care of creation bit...

I've very little tolerance for pro-life advocates who act as though life begins at conception and ends at birth. There are much bigger issues at stake. Yet, poverty, starvation and the death penalty do not receive the same kind of press as a minor requirement to provide contraception to employees.

It's a very central tenet of the Jude-Christian faiths that you will be judged for your actions, but the pundits (primarily male) want to decide how women should manage their health and reproduction. Motherhood is a wonderful thing, when the mother is able to care for her child. A woman knows when she is not ready for children or marriage. This is her human right, not a culture war.

Religion is a personal decision. Reproduction should be a personal decision.

Like a zombie, this blog is back from the dead

Luckily, it won't come after your braaaaaaaiiiinnnsss. Stay tuned for future topics including, but not limited to:

• What we can learn about contraception history from Downton Abbey
• Katniss vs. Bella, the ultimate face-off
• Chasing ears and ghosts: A Wild Sheep Chase Book Review
• The Followers Manifesto: Dance as a team sport