The 2009 winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry,

is Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, a man from southern India who moved to the US in his 20's to do his graduate work. He is amazingly accomplished in biology and physics as well but there was just one piece in the India Abroad article about him that got tears to well up in my eyes:

In India there was a temple he was about to enter that had a sign on the front saying "Women who are menstruating may not enter."

He immediately turned around and walked back in the other direction.

A man speaking out against oppression of women.

Made Felda's day. :)

How the Pro-choice Movement Saved America, by Cristina Page

In this book, Page provides a recount of the efforts of the pro-life side to take away women's autonomy. You would think that pro-lifers would be supportive of efforts that could actually help reduce the number of abortions, support efforts that make sense and are scientifically-grounded, and encourage comprehensive sex education so that people can have healthy and informed sex lives. But not only has the movement not just been against abortion, it's been about limiting education and women's access to services that actually prevent abortion. In effect it is the movement's attempt to limit free sex and non-conventional lives for women.

The pro-life movement has worked hard to limit access to emergency contraception (EC), something that would actually prevent abortion since it keeps an egg from implanting on the uterine wall. The irony for the pro-life movement is that if more women were not prevented from getting the EC pill, there would be fewer abortions. It is sickening to hear how many pharmacists have turned women away (even rape survivors) despite having a doctor's prescription for EC.

Another key way in which the pro-life movement has in effect encouraged abortions during a later term in the pregnancy is by requiring women to wait a month or so before having one. One, this is setting a woman up to be criticized by those of that very pro-life movement. They want her to wait, and if she has one later in the pregnancy, she's a monster, a baby-killer. Two, this implies that somehow a month after finding out she's a pregnant, a woman's situation, feelings, fears and health might magically change about something as huge as a pregnany and becoming a parent.

The pro-choice side, on the other hand, has actually been more about preventing abortions than the pro-life side. This movement believes in providing all women access to EC, such that a pregnancy does not happen in the first place. The pro-choice movement also sees that terminating a pregnancy as soon as possible is better. The earlier on the abortion, the fewer the cells that are being removed from the uterus and the farther along the abortion happens, the greater the chance of terminating the pregnancy when the fetus could actually survive outside of the womb. But somehow for the pro-lifers, scraping a few cells from the uterine wall has become equated with murder.

Further, pro-choicers are supportive of comprehensive sex education. Imagine that: kids being taught how to use a condom, information on how their bodies work, etc. so that they can be safer and prevent pregnancy and STD's, rather than being ignorant and being taught that talking about such things is taboo and inappropriate. Not having comprehensive education makes kids (even adults for that matter) embarrassed about asking important questions and makes communication (and particularly for women, assertiveness) with one's partner that much more difficult.

Pro-lifers have looked at only their religious beliefs and the fetus when determining policy. The problem with that is, one cannot do that without considering the woman who is the one that has to go through a pregnancy in order to actually give birth to that fetus. There are some pro-lifers who are a little more to the left and agree that abortion should be legal for those whose pregnancies were a result of rape or incest. I can have a little more respect for that. However, would a life conceived in such a way not be one of god? (Guess that is a question pro-lifers need to answer for themselves.) And many pro-lifers also have the argument that a woman needs to go through with a pregnancy as a way to take responsibility for her irresponsibility with sex. Well one, I've already stated that comprehensive education is not widely available and in that sense many women have been pressured into sex without being equipped with assertiveness skills. In effect those situations have been rape. Two, Page uses the great analogy that if a person develops cancer through an unhealthy lifestyle, do doctors tell them that they are not entitled to treatment? And three, where is the man's responsibility? According to our laws, he has none. Lastly, I've had one person tell me that abortion is also not an option for a married couple. Well one of my cousins has had two high-risk pregnancies. I'm sure she and her husband are making sure she doesn't get pregnant again but should she get pregnant, neither of them would want her to go through another pregnancy given how much time she's had to spend in the hospital during the pregnancies of both their children. But pro-lifers believe she *has* to go through with it.

I often consider how drug policy has been similar to abortion policy. Drug use, something that really just impacts the body of the person using it, is illegal in the US. But in countries in which drug use is not criminalized the use and addiction rates are actually lower than that in the US. When there is comprehensive education on such issues, people make more informed and healthier choices. But for some reason, we in the US want to dictate what others do to their bodies despite not providing programs that could actually support healthier and more fulfilling lives.

Finally, I think we need to be vigilant about the language that we use since it can have impact our thinking and values. Particularly in the abortion debate, I believe language has really distorted what's going on. One, "pro-life" implies the other side is "pro-death." Two, I don't like the phrase "deciding whether or not to keep the baby." That literally means a woman is holding a baby and she's trying to decide whether or not to throw it out the window. What she really means is, "I'm trying to decide if I want to be pregnant, to have children." Lastly there's the term "abortion rights." Though I totally agree that a woman has that right regardless of how she found herself pregnant, it kind of sounds like "voting rights." Like we all have that right and we *should* exercise it, pro-lifers have made it sound like women are going to get knocked up just to go out and put themselves through an uncomfortable procedure. What it really is, is a "right to decide the fate of one's body."

Bras

I was shopping for bras the other day and boy was that a slightly scary experience. First off, most all bras were padded. Um folks, what does that say about society's expectation of women? That you should either have big boobs, or at the very least, LOOK like you do. All I wanted was a frickin REGULAR ass bra to just do it's job: give the ladies a little support.

Lo and behold, I find a bra without padding. Woo hoo! Score!

However, there's a catch:

I get home and realize I'd bought a nursing bra. Yes, a nursing bra.

So we want women to have either big boobs, or be nursing a baby.

Well, I'm not nursing nor lactating, and am wearing that bra cuz it's comfortable and does its job. After all, I love the saying you often see on bumper stickers and signs: women who follow the rules don't make history. Or shall I say, Herstory.

In honor of my birthday,

I want to write my Seinfeld critique. ;) Now I don't think you all expected any different now, did you? ;) This post has been formulating in my mind for a while and I just never got around to entering it, but given that it's my favorite show of all time must be the reason I'm motivated to write it on my 34th birthday.

I think that the show really breaks the mold of situational comedies and is a brilliant parody, caricature and representation of our often ridiculous lives. It is also very much a feminist show, which I'll also go into later.

The "show about nothing" paradoxically probably talks about more substance than most shows that are supposedly about *something.* The writers do a beautiful job of using irony to show how schmucks who go after superficial things will often fall flat on their faces. It also boldly discusses issues that impact the core of our lives yet we don't want to talk about them, whether they be sex, our inherent egocentric-ness, our dark sides, or interracial relations. And this is all aside from the wonderful combination of dark, ironic, slapstick and random humor. It is also aside from the wonderful writing creativity that leads to synchronicity of the characters' stories in the end of each episode. Most sitcoms are predictable (you know so and so is going to cheat on so and so and they will break up and maybe they'll get back together...) and these days are not truly situational sitcoms (i.e. it's a bunch of people sitting around talking and one scene does not have an ending that is the catalyst for the second scene), and each character has her/his own stories going on that don't impact other characters so much.

But Seinfeld's brilliant! HOW did the writers come up with the idea of, for instance, Elaine buying a pair of glasses from a random guy on the street to get back at her ex, which leads to that guy not being able to see so he wanders off into the street and George almost hits him, leading George to get into a fight with the woman he was with. Elaine then gives that pair of glasses to her potential boss to please him, which pisses off the ex and leads him to get into a fight with the boss, messing up her chances to get the job. Further, though the show is about daily hum drum things, those daily hum drum things do take up a significant portion of our time and it's nice to be able to laugh at them. I do feel that humor reduces the intensity of negative experiences and emotions. Not to mention that the writers were able to create a running and complex storyline based on those seemingly trivial things!

In addition to such creativity, I appreciate the deeper societal issues that the show addresses. It also does a great job, for example, of highlighting hypocrisy in our modern society related to attitudes toward homosexuality: "I'm not gay, not that there's anything wrong with that." It's a great representation of how a lot of people say there's nothing wrong with being gay, but if there's nothing wrong with it, then why do people take issue with being mistaken for being gay? So I've never understood why those who don't like the show don't like it simply because the characters are jerks (well, they are, but that's the point!) when the show is simply highlighting this overall societal issue. The writers wouldn't have thought of it if the issue didn't exist. Do these folks really think the writers condone such behavior for real life? And the characters are just actors portraying this message; do folks really think that the actors don't know they're playing jerks? I thought it was super cute that Kramer and Jerry kiss on the show. Jerry was playing a character who would take issue with it, but Jerry the actor couldn't have an issue with it if he did the scene. Thus, the show really addresses humanness.

Furthermore, the reason I say Seinfeld is a feminist show is for many reasons. First, Elaine is simply part of the group of friends and her (any of the characters for that matter) happiness or story isn't complete only by getting married. In fact, they are all in a way struggling to keep their independence and identities. Though Sex and the City broke the mold in some ways, I feel the show really sold out to the man by wrapping the story up with a bow, aka Carrie getting married to the elusive jerk. I would be lying if I said that I don't desire to share my life with a partner, but I'm not going to settle for someone with whom I don't feel a true connection. I've gotten just as much happiness (though it might be a different kind but why is that bad?) from getting kudos from a professor, or using my talents, or seeing an idea of mine coming to fruition. I'd like to see more shows where women get excited about more than just relationships, don't have to choose between a career and a marriage, and whose partners pull their weight around the home.

Second, Elaine does not have an unrealistic body type; she is healthy and has some flesh on her bones unlike the anorexics in most shows. Third, in fact, that is the one of the beautiful aspects of the show, that none of the actors have the superficial qualities that our society defines as being beautiful. Not only does this speak to the writing and acting that still made the show popular, but it employed actors without expecting them to change their bodies in an unhealthy way.

I think that gender stereotypes also put men at a disadvantage (e.g. receding hairline, crying and not being able to support a family as being less than ideal qualities) and striving for gender equity involves liberating women such that men are also liberated certain ways, so that all individuals and families can be happier and healthier. Male actors on most other popular shows look like they stepped out of a magazine when in reality, real, lovable people don't look like that.

It's hard for me to watch anything without analyzing it, which drives my family crazy. But that's just my personal definition and preference for entertainment. Unless it gives me something to think about or pay attention to, I get bored. Of course I understand that some things are just for the sake of passing time, turning off your brain and vegging. I admit that I even like to watch some shows for the beautiful people. But I see those as the Totino's pizza that serves that purpose in one moment whereas Seinfeld is the higher quality, Chicago pizzeria pizza. ;) But seriously, our values and mainstream media are a reciprocal relationship and if we want to see changes in our society's values, then we're going to have to support the efforts that do celebrate such a change.

Serenity Now!!!!

International Women's Day

March 8th is International Women's Day! I have put the url of a UN page describing the day a little further, along with a timeline of some key historical dates.

Now generally I am not a fan of such "days." I find them cheesy (and let's face it, most are created to perpetuate our capitalistic and materialistic society):
-Valentines Day: we should always, every day, be choosing to love our loved ones and not taking them for granted.
-Earth Day: we should, every day, be thinking about our actions as they impact the earth and environment.
-Thanksgiving: don't even get me started on how this holiday commemorates the pilgrims and Indians coming together when the Indians were getting screwed. But oh yeah, we should always make time at the end of each day to be thankful for what we have.

So you get my point. But I wanted to take it being International Women's Day as an opportunity to share my recent thoughts related to gender roles and how women have been underdogs in so many ways:

-Women put their bodies at risk, and do the physical work, to give birth, yet children traditionally carry on their father's names.
-Orgasms are not a sure thing for most women whereas they are for most men.
-"Female" characteristics are not valued in society as highly as male characteristics. (e.g. "Don't be such a girl." "You throw like a girl." "Don't be so emotional, you're not a girl.")
-It is habitually expected by most that the mothers stay at home to raise children while the fathers can pursue their careers and dreams and be considered great dads for attending one soccer game, even though the mothers were dealing with the screaming children all day.
-Despite this, mothers generally get blamed for their children's "downfalls." (e.g. Two and a Half Men is a show that portrays this stereotypical idea-the mom is evil, yet dad is nowhere in sight). But duh, parents aren't perfect. If you're going to blame the mom for a neurotic child, then also credit her for the child's strengths.
-Women are victims of domestic violence and rape much more than men.
-In America, the world's greatest superpower, women still make lower wages than men for the same jobs.

So let's take this day to tell the women in our lives that we love them, to credit their work, and find a way to get closer to gender equity.

One way I have recently tried to do this, of which I'm very proud, is writing a proposal to do further research to measure the costs of the no drug use tolerance rule that domestic violence shelters have for their clients. Of course for safety reasons I'm not advocating that clients be allowed to use substances while utilizing shelter services, but I hope to put together a qualitative as well as quantitative argument for the funding of integrated domestic violence shelter and substance abuse treatment programs, such that women who struggle with drug addiction are not put back out on the street with nowhere safe to go. I have passed my proposal on to the coalition against domestic violence and partnered with it in hopes that before I move, I can at least have provided some ideas and inspiration for a bill to go to the state legislature.

I love the Native American proverb: We don't own the earth. We have only borrowed it from our children. The only thing that is certain about our universe is death. Let's take constructive and positive action such that when we are on our death beds, we can feel content knowing we have utilized our abilities and truly done what we can to make our world a better place for future generations.