Quote of the Day

"I'm truly honored to have received this appointment and am eager and excited about this opportunity that is before me. And at the same time, as one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others." - Amanda Simpson, a trans woman who was recently appointed by President Obama as a Senior Technical Advisor to the Department of Commerce, in the Bureau of Industry and Security.

h/t Shakesville.

Touch, Children and Consent

I've mentioned before that I work in a preschool. It's incredibly fun and I love my specialized focus of teaching my 3-5 year olds the necessary literacy skills they'll need to be successful readers in kindergarten (Psst: If you live in Minnesota, love working with and teaching kids, and need a short-term [1-2 years] job for next school year, email me and I'll give you more information about my non-profit).

However, once I'm with my kids, it's like my body is not my own anymore. More specifically, my lap for sitting, my hands for holding and rarely my hair for pulling. This is usually the extent of it, but occasionally kids will ask me what my breasts are or touch my butt from behind without notice. It usually doesn't bother me (except the one time when a kid had messy hands from lunch and wiped them all over the back of my jeans).

Today while reading The Lorax, one of my students began putting her hands near my collarbone, resting them on my skin for a moment then moving them to my other side. She said she was checking for my heartbeat. Another boy stuck his hand out and put it squarely on my breasts, saying, "No, this is where her heartbeat is." I suggested they try checking for their own heartbeat underneath their chins, modeling how to do it. His touch obviously wasn't sexual, but there's still something jarring about being touched, especially in some areas, without notice or consent. I don't want to stigmatize a particular area of their bodies as sexual, dirty, shameful or something they shouldn't be touching without the larger context and conversations of age-appropriate bodily education.* But they know the rules - hands to yourself, you must ask a friend first before touching, and you have to listen when a friend says no.

Awhile back we got a new girl in the class. She had no troubles adjusting to the class and got along well with the other children. On her first day, one of the boys suggested they be boyfriend and girlfriend. They held hands a bit during story time (with several warnings about the hands to yourself rule) and he tried to kiss her on the cheek after. She clearly didn't like this and I had to tell him to respect her no, even if he didn't like it. The class rules say that we have to listen to everyone's no, but I felt like I should have included that a girl's no must especially be listened to. It turns out she didn't even want to be his "girlfriend," but felt a little pressured. I told her that it's ok to say no if you don't want something. Again - these are 4 year olds.

But it must be said early and often if the message is to be understood.

Sometimes I wonder how I would do my job if I had difficulties with being touched without asking or were triggered by such actions.

Yet at the same time, I have to consider my own actions. Sometimes I touch kids without expressly asking. In the case of some kids, it helps if I rub their back during storytime. They listen better; they keep their hands to themselves, and I imagine it makes them feel loved. At first I finished that sentence with safe - I imagine it makes them feel safe- but I don't think I can say that for all kids. We want preschool to be a safe enviornment and actively work to destress kids in order to make them feel comfortable enough to learn. Some kids like having their back rubbed or scratched and I suppose I just think most kids like it.

And then I read Rebecca from City of Ladies and Thomas from Yes Means Yes** and step back to evaluate my own actions. Am I touching kids who would rather I not touch them? Perhaps. There are some things I'm very explicit about - I always ask a child if they would like to give me a hug and accept the occasional "no." I don't take pictures of children without their consent. But it seems that I must adjust my actions to include all touching if I am truly to respect their own decisions about their bodies.

It only takes a quick "Can I rub your back?" and all bases are covered. How many difficulties in this world would be avoided if only we checked in and made sure we had consent first?





*Since this came up a bit in one of my prior posts about preschool children and the language they use to describe their bodies, I'll state this clearly: I believe in age appropriate bodily education and will implement this in the classroom. That doesn't mean, as one anonymous commenter suggested, "feminists teaching [preschool children] about their bodies or sexuality." Age appropriate bodily education includes proper, anatomical names for body parts (arms, legs, brain, arm bones, vagina, penis, toes, etc) and recognizing what their bodies are telling them (hunger, sickness, anger, happiness). I'm not indoctrinating kids into feminism when I say that I use age appropriate bodily education; I'm teaching them that sometimes that funny feeling in their stomach means they're hungry, angry, sick or have to poop.

**My own thinking on the topic of children and bodily respect has been influenced by Thomas' post "If She's Not Having Fun You Have To Stop." It has been useful in shaping the way I interact and help police my student's actions.

100,000 hits!

On behalf of all the writers here at Female Impersonator, I want to say thank you to our readers! On Sunday we reached 100,000 unique hits. Amelia founded the blog in February 2008 as the sole author and has built it to what it is today.

I want to thank Amelia for starting the blog and providing a space where we can share our thoughts on everything under the sun. She has been the driving force behind making Female Impersonator into what it is today. Without her, we wouldn't be here.

Here's to another 100,000 hits!

A Tale of Two Models: 2 and 12

I think this is really fascinating:

Photo via The Frisky

V Magazine's upcoming Size Issue has a photo spread of two models, one size 2 and one size 12, wearing the exact same clothes and posing similarly. There are more photos at the V Magazine site. Editor in chief Stephen Gan said, ""Big, little, pint-size, plus-size -- every body is beautiful. And this issue is out to prove it."

Thoughts?

Lady Gaga, Racism and Feminism

There's been a fair amount of discussion about the Lady Gaga/Kanye West photo for the special edition of Lady Gaga's new album. You can find the picture through google if you'd like to see it but I don't feel the need to repost it here. I also don't want to restate what a lot of people have been saying already, but I do want to draw your attention to Thea Lim's coverage at Racialicious. The picture is posted at Racialicious also.

Recently I posted a quote from Lady Gaga's interview with the LA Times in which she discusses the difference between men and women in the music business. Thea is right to point out that this article, and notions of Lady Gaga's feminism, got a lot of attention, perhaps unjustly so. She responds saying:

While in my September article I gave a digital eyeroll to Gaga’s assertion that she is “redefining beauty,” I’m willing to reconsider that stance. I can see how Gaga often subverts viewer expectation, enticing us with views of perfect white beauty, but then ensconcing that beauty in the disturbing. She presents her “perfect body,” but covers it in fake blood. She dresses up in sparkly dresses and matching heels, but her shoes are creepily curved into scary bird feet. Juxtaposing images that are comfortable or normative with images that are unsettling or bizarre, Gaga turns the tables on us. Instead of simply refusing to allow voyeurism, she harnesses it, tricking and punishing the heteronormative in us, while rewarding our inner pervert.

And yet, like sooooo many artists who do interesting and progressive work in one area, Gaga totally fails in another. The very visible problems with the King Kong Gaga image suggests that along with some great parts of feminism – being sex-positive, being critical of how the entertainment industry uses women’s bodies – Gaga is also practicising the worst part of feminism: racism.

I think Thea is right on the money and a lot of us have overlooked this aspect of Gaga in exchange for desparately holding onto a subversive female artist. Feminists gets a lot of criticism for our treatment of women of color, where we throw race out the window in exchange for gender unity (or a gender unity that's silently/assumedly centered around white women's experiences).

While I know that we can't get it right all the time, we should at least try to get it right where it counts. The history of women of color being shunted by white feminists is too prominant and too on-going to ignore.

In this case, I held up Lady Gaga as a feminist role model by highlighting her quote. Although I still agree with her statement, I do want to take this opportunity to offer up Thea's sharp critique as a counter point to her image as a feminist. A feminist, yes, but also a feminist who plays into and reinforces racist imagery.

Fat acceptance for 4 year olds

Today while reading a story with one of the PreK students I work with, she stopped me in the middle of the book to ask me a question.

"Am I fat?" she asked.

"No." I said.

"Am I skinny?" she asked.

"You know what?" I said, "Everyone looks different. And that's ok. Do you look the same as me?"

"No."

"Do I look the same as (another student)?"

"No."

"Does (another student) look the same as (another student)?"

"No."

"We all look different. And that's not bad. It's good. It's ok that we all look different."

And then we started talking about the different ways we get to school in the morning and how she wanted a bike for Christmas.

Now that I've had the chance to think about our talk, I wonder if I wasn't clear enough. If I didn't state explicitly enough that she is wonderful just the way she is. If I could have made her understand that her body is her own, to be judged by no one. If I should have used words like acceptance and love instead of different and ok. If when the other teacher called her "our big girl" and told her not to eat quite so much, I should have done ... something. Anything.

My student is 4 years old.

She is facing a lifetime of societal messages telling her to be thin, white, blonde, tall, physically able and more from every angle, explicitly and subconsciously. Already my students dress up as Belle, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and other princesses that don't look like them.

Since the outside forces of society are so strong, should I have been explicitly clear that her body shape does not define her? That there are more people who don't look like Cinderella than do? That the standard of beauty is constructed to be impossible? How can I use my limited role in her life to help her accept herself?

My student is 4 years old and asking me if she's fat. How can I ever do enough to help her?

Woman up, Anon.

To the anonymous commenter who left this comment:

"I like that you moderated my comment that disproved your theory by not posting it. That's really open minded of you. I appreciate your ability to listen to other views. You are such a self centered person, Lindsay."

I just want to give the same speech I have for my voice mail - leave your name and I'll get back to you shortly. Hell, even a psuedonym.

How do I know which anonymous commenter I've offended when there are so many of them? Since it was on the Baby, It's Cold Outside post, I'm guessing you have a problem with identifying the aspects of rape culture present in a holiday song. Do you count this in the War on Christmas?

Also, anonymous comments don't change my mind. Serious rebuttals from actual people do have the potential to change my mind, but as long as it exists in a sphere where you realize that I have the potential to change your mind as well. I listen to and consider thought-out and well-argued points of view. I'm not so stubborn that I refuse to be open to new ideas on a topic. It just takes a little debate.

However, I'm woman enough to write and leave my name. I don't engage in debates with people who can't handle the same standards.

Labels: Which to wear to Christmas?

I came out as queer in 2009. The reason this subject has been on my mind lately has everything to do with the use of labels, my family, and the holidays.

For several years I’ve applied several labels to myself without problem. In 2005 I took on the label of liberal. In 2007 I took on the label of feminist. These labels I wore with pride, and they seemed to fit me comfortably. When I came out as queer, however, the taking of that label felt different to me. It was an appropriate label, but it just didn’t feel the same.

It was when I started coming out to people that I decided against the term bisexual and went with queer instead. However, when getting to know new people, I didn’t always use the term queer. It wasn’t that I felt ashamed of my sexuality, but openly applying the label with new people was a challenge for me, one that I didn’t seem to face when discussing the topic with people I had known before and had then come out to. The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that it has something to do with the fact that the nature of the labels is different.

When I say that I’m a feminist, people may make assumptions about my attitude and my sexuality, but they also make assumptions about my ideas and my politics. When I say that I’m queer, people only have my sexuality to make assumptions about, and that hits a lot closer to home and is a lot more personal than when people have other things to assume. I’ve made a lot of progress in being comfortable with the label queer, and I’m wearing it a lot more freely than I did at first. But being at home with my family for winter break makes me feel like hiding again.

My sister is the only person in my family that I’ve deliberately come out to. I never did come out to my parents directly. They know because they found out who I’m dating. Since my sister and I have been home from college, I’ve talked to her about a plan I had come up with, one that I wouldn’t actually undertake. I wanted to come out to the rest of my mother’s family on Christmas Eve, before dinner, after the prayer, and after someone, as always, asks, “Any announcements?” I would tell my grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins something catchy like, “I’m here, and I’m queer!”

When I mentioned that idea, my sister cautioned me. She said that maybe queer wasn’t the best word choice. She said that some of my relatives may not understand what queer meant and that they might think that I only liked women. Although I disagreed with the tone of the statement which suggested that having people assume I was strictly attracted to women was somehow worse than liking men, women, and everyone in between, my sister did have a valid point.

There was an incident a few years ago in which some family members started talking about one of my second cousins. He is the only of three brothers who hasn’t gotten married and had children. He still doesn’t even have a girlfriend. My family discussed how, perhaps, he was gay. Several family members seemed unwilling to even consider the idea, appearing rather put off by the thought. At the time, the incident made me uncomfortable. Remembering it now makes me hesitant, especially considering that my mother’s family is rather religious, although not overbearing about their beliefs.

As the holidays approach, all I can think about is how my mother’s family is aware of some of the labels I wear, but not all of them. It doesn’t seem fair. The only reason I choose to wear labels is so that people who know me can have a better understanding of who I am. Labels are identifiers and are not static. Labels should evolve. New ones should pop up and old, inaccurate ones should fade out when a person changes. Can my family truly know who I am if they aren’t aware of a label that is important to me? Is it fair of me to not tell them something that might make them uncomfortable, even if I want to be open? Thinking about this, I need to decide which ones I’ll be wearing to celebrate the holidays this year with my family.

Quick Read: Military Abortion Ban at Religious Dispatches

A couple standout quotes from Military Abortion Ban: Female Soldiers Not Protected By The Constitution They Defend at Religious Dispatches, a post about the ban on military doctors performing abortions for soldiers:

“They convinced themselves that anyone who would do a self-abortion is crazy,” Amy says. “It’s not a crazy thing. It’s something that rational, thinking women do when they have no options.”

...

Vicki Saporta, President of the National Abortion Federation, says that military women seeking abortions face a no-win situation. “If you’re a woman in the military, you’re going to have to obtain a leave to get the care you need. If you’re honest about why you need that care, you put your military career in jeopardy. If you’re not honest, then you put your military career in jeopardy.”

A really fascinating must-read and draws very strong connections to Stupak.

I'm increasingly impressed by the level and quality of articles at Religious Dispatches. I think it's quite often a reliable, progressive website that discusses religious topics with a very strong pro-woman, pro-choice tilt. Keep up the good work, Religious Dispatches.

Rape Culture and Christmas Songs

Note: This post was originally posted in November 2008.

If you participate in Christmas, you should be glad to know that our rape culture even extends to Christmas songs:

I really can't stay - Baby it's cold outside
I've got to go away - Baby it's cold outside
This evening has been - Been hoping that you'd drop in
So very nice - I'll hold your hands, they're just like ice
My mother will start to worry - Beautiful, what's your hurry
My father will be pacing the floor - Listen to the fireplace roar
So really I'd better scurry - Beautiful, please don't hurry
well Maybe just a half a drink more - Put some music on while I pour

The neighbors might think - Baby, it's bad out there
Say, what's in this drink - No cabs to be had out there
I wish I knew how - Your eyes are like starlight now
To break this spell - I'll take your hat, your hair looks swell
I ought to say no, no, no, sir - Mind if I move a little closer
At least I'm gonna say that I tried - What's the sense in hurting my pride
I really can't stay - Baby don't hold out
Ahh, but it's cold outside

C'mon baby

I simply must go - Baby, it's cold outside
The answer is no - Ooh baby, it's cold outside
This welcome has been - I'm lucky that you dropped in
So nice and warm -- Look out the window at that storm
My sister will be suspicious - Man, your lips look so delicious
My brother will be there at the door - Waves upon a tropical shore
My maiden aunt's mind is vicious - Gosh your lips look delicious
Well maybe just a half a drink more - Never such a blizzard before

I've got to go home - Oh, baby, you'll freeze out there
Say, lend me your comb - It's up to your knees out there
You've really been grand - Your eyes are like starlight now
But don't you see - How can you do this thing to me
There's bound to be talk tomorrow - Making my life long sorrow
At least there will be plenty implied - If you caught pneumonia and died
I really can't stay - Get over that old out
Ahh, but it's cold outside

Baby it's cold outside

Brr its cold….
It's cold out there
Cant you stay awhile longer baby
Well…..I really shouldn't...alright

Make it worth your while baby
Ahh, do that again….

Ah, nothing gets me in the Christmas mood like coercion, intentionally getting someone drunk for the purpose of sex, the idea that not wanting to have sex hurts a man's pride, female purity that needs to be protect by family members, slut-shaming by the community and date rape all immortalized in holiday song and cheer.

Quote of the Day: Lady Gaga

"I find that men get away with saying a lot in this business, and that women get away with saying very little . . . In my opinion, women need and want someone to look up to that they feel have the full sense of who they are, and says, 'I'm great.' "

-Lady Gaga in the LA Times

A little something on basketball and goddesses for you

Just wanted to pass along a few things...

First, this article on women in the NBA from Sports Illustrated. Interesting article (with, not suprisingly, all male voices) even though they've decided that any woman who plays pro basketball with men will be "freakish." Avoid cringing when they use the phrase "man-sized ball." Although I do like this answer to the question of different sized basketballs in play:

If this ever does happen, it will happen via one amazing woman
player who has spent her young life aiming for this far-fetched dream. She'll
have played thousands of hours of pickup games against men. The ball will be
irrelevant to her.

Thank you.

Also, The Undomestic Goddess has the 9th Carnival of Feminists up today! We've got a post in there so check it out along with many other fabulous links.

Butts, penises and cookies

I submit, for your consideration, exhibit A in the case of needing accurate age-appropriate education about our bodies, a scene from the PreK classroom where I work:

We are reading a book about how dinosaurs say good night. One of the dinosaurs turns off the light with his tail.

Lead teacher: Do you turn off the light with your tail?
All kids: No!
Boy: We don't have tails! We have butts and penises!
Girl: Girls don't have a penis! We have cookies!

There's a split second where everyone looks at the boy, then the girl, thinking we're going to tell them not to say "penis." My lead teacher says, "Girls have vaginas," and keeps reading.

At least the girl didn't call it a vah-jay-jay.

Debra Haffner and Jim Wallis on Stupak

One more reason why I'm not a Jim Wallis fan - his piece at Huffpo titled "Health Care: Keep Your Eyes On The Prize."

You can read it all for yourself, but he writes,

"Whether every American woman has a health plan that pays for abortion or not, tens of millions of currently uninsured women in this country will be much better off with health insurance than without. Therefore a focus on "women's health" cannot just be restricted to access to abortion."

Yeah, but you can't talk about women's health without realizing that access to reproductive health care is part of that.

I just can't believe that he put quotes around "women's health." As if it's not real. Fake. Pretend. A figment of my imagination. If he has his way, my access to affordable, comprehensive health care will be a figment of my imagination. I'd like to think my health is more than just a series of air quotes in a lengthy and puffed up Huffpo article.

If I went on, I'd just be restating what Daniel Schultz says in "Jim Wallis' Egregious 'Memo To Nation's Leaders' on Stupak" over at Religious Dispatches. From Schultz, "In his passion for health-care reform, he seems not only willing to toss aside basic questions about human rights without a second thought, but unable to understand that some people might have a problem with that. Even worse, he's quick to blame the people who got screwed for not making a compromise more quickly."

Also over at Huffpo is Rev. Debra Haffner's take on Stupak in light of King Solomon, compassion and justice. She rightly juxtaposes the role and authority of religious institutions to the Constitution, quoting from the Religious Insitute's Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision. The document states, "No government committed to human rights and democracy can privilege the teachings of one religion over another. No single religious voice can speak for all faith traditions on abortion, nor should government take sides on religious differences."

Let's hope our congresspeople remember that we are a nation not bound to one religion or doctrine and thus cannot legislate on one interepretation of morality.

Democrats really hate women or I use the skills I got in law school to analyze stuff that takes away my rights

Have you heard that the newly-passed health care bill treats women like second-class citizens?

Behold the absolute draw-dropping shittiness of The Stupak Amendment. Here it is, proof positive, that Democrats really hate women. What's also awesome is that the first female Speaker of the House presided over a Democratic majority that passed the most expansive restriction on women's rights in recent history. Not only was the amendment passed by 62 democrats (and all voting Republicans), the bill carrying the amendment was passed through Congress 220-215, with the majority of Democrats blithely signing the biggest roll-back of reproductive rights. Super.

Some Democrats (mostly women) did not take this sitting down. They tried to speak in Congress, only to have male Republicans heckling them and shouting "I object, I object, I object, I object" over them. Think Progress has the video. Thrown under the bus by their own party, some of the women we voted into office were forced to speak out against their own party signing away their rights while they were viciously silenced by the very men that orchestrated this new oppression. I'm sure that while the men in Congress, some of them in their own party, thought this was just business as usual, our minority of female lawmakers got a heady sense of deja vu. Men talking over them in a meeting? Nah, that never happens. Especially when you're talking about your own freedoms and liberty. I mean, just shut up, woman. Know your place.

Out of this process of ugliness came the unholy spawn of the Stupack Amendment. However, unlike some other places, I believe that the proof is in the pudding. I'm not doing to quote from some dude that quoted from some other dude that quoted from yet another dude. I'm including the full text of this steaming file of fail. Here's your hope and change, right here:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 3962
OFFERED BY MR. STUPACK OF MICHIGAN
AND MR. PITTS OF PENNSYLVANIA

SEC. 265 LIMITATION OF ABORTION FUNDING

(A) IN GENERAL—
No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the women in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(B) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN—
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as—
(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased using—
(a) individual premium payments requires for an Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or
(b) other nonfederal funds require to receive a federal payment, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

(C) OPTION TO OFFER SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN—
Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as—
(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;
(2) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and
(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.

The emphases are mine.

For those without a background in legalese, this is about as unequivocal and binding as law can get. There's no wiggle room. No exceptions. What this creates is a health care system in which women are second class citizens, forced to choose between even private coverage of a perfectly legal procedure and all federal funding of health care. This, simply, is an outrage. As far as I'm concerned, this violates both Roe and the substantive due process of the 14th amendment, but for those without a background in law, rest assured that this crap is really, really, really, legally dubious.

So let's digest this, line by disgusting line.

Section A explicitly prohibits any federal funding governed by HR 3962 (the larger Affordable Health Care for America Act) going towards the provision of abortions. But if you thought that they really needed to put this in, that anyone was really ever in danger of seeing their tax dollars going to "kill babies", allow me to enlighten you. Behold the related 30-year-old ickiness of the Hyde Amendment. Passed in 1976, in the immediate backlash of Roe decision three years earlier, the amendment explicitly bars all appropriations for The Department of Heath and Human Service budget from going to the purpose of funding abortions. It does not prohibit all federal funding of abortion, just anything out of HHS. Since H.R. 3962 would be administrated by HHS, there was absolutely no way, shape, or form that its provisions would go to funding abortion. Got it straight?

Moving on, the second clause is the kicker: "or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion". You catch that? If you have a health plan that covers abortion, you cannot receive any federal assistance. Can't make the last $300 for a root canal? Too bad. Choose between your teeth rotting out of your face or abortion coverage. Want part of your "exchange" to go towards a consultation with an allergist for your seasonal allergies that you couldn't otherwise afford? Too bad, you got an abortion last year on that plan.

This amendment goes beyond limiting federal funds. This explicitly bars even private insurance companies from covering abortions.

Well, so can insurance companies just offer plans with abortion coverage and ones without? Sure, if you're cool on getting totally substandard care and no government assistance whatsoever. Given that the majority of those who see themselves in low-paying part-time positions that don't offer health coverage are women, there's going to be a lot of women who need federal assistance. But they won't get it unless they accept prohibitions on their rights, and start saving for out-of-pocket abortions if they need it, instead of putting away money for retirement. That's other thing: men won't have to save for expensive procedures that they need. They won't have to choose between affordable health care and their reproductive rights.

But all this begs the question: will insurance companies continue to offer abortion coverage? The answer: probably not to the extent they do now. Providing abortion coverage will undoubtedly require additional administrative costs to make sure that the company remains in compliance with the amendment. Additionally, by section C Paragraph 3, those additional administrative costs will have to be covered entirely without federal assistance that insurance companies could get if they didn't offer abortion.

The result is obvious: some companies will just not offer abortion coverage. It's too troublesome and expensive. If they offer it, they're required by Section C Paragraph 3 to provide identical coverage that doesn't cover abortions. Notice that the amendment, however, does not require that companies offer plans that do offer abortion coverage. A company would be in compliance if they did not offer coverage for abortion at all. In fact, it's transparently obvious that this is the goal of the entire amendment: to make it so that insurance companies will have lots of incentives to never cover abortions.

If a company decided to offer coverage including abortion, the coverage would be prohibitively expensive. Not only could the insured not use federal monies for any medical procedure so long as they are covered for abortion, they also would be forced to pay higher premiums. After all, the additional administrative costs of the plan could not be paid for with federal assistance, which would transfer the additional fees directly unto women. To really sweeten the deal, you'd also be ineligible for Medicaid matching even from your state while your insurance covers abortion. Awesome.

At the end of the day, you're left with a tiered health care system. At the very top are men. They can purchase private insurance. They can use public funds. They can do what you want with them, within reason, and not have to worry about losing coverage.

Quite a way below them are women paying for identical insurance except for abortion coverage, but paying much higher premiums. They cannot use public funds for anything.

Below them even further are women who can't pay for the prohibitively expensive private insurance of their female peers. Among them are women that need any assistance whatsoever for anything, even something as simple as a teeth cleaning. They must pay for abortion out-of-pocket or choose between any federal or state assistance. It's arguable that most women will find themselves here, as the prohibitive cost of the above will make it unfeasible unless you plan on getting abortions often.

And at the very bottom are the women who can neither pay for prohibitively expensive private insurance or out-of-pocket abortions. They get pregnant, and they're forced to procure risky abortions by untrained providers or have a baby against their will. At best, they succeed. At worst, they bleed to death or lose their fertility to a massive infection.

Oh, and they will suffer from those cheaper abortions. I'd bet all the money I have that someone will make it so the prohibition against paying for abortions will extend to paying for the complications from botched abortions. Or they'll extend it to birth control, IUDs, and all those things that wackos say "kill babies". Before long, everything that has to do with your right to exercise your entirely legal reproductive rights will damn you to fork over big bucks. No assistance. No coverage. Additionally, because paying massive premiums for abortion coverage is totally unfeasible and uneconomical for basically everyone, it will come to pass that all women in America must pay out-of-pocket for abortions.

Lo and behold, our Democratic majority has opened its collective butthole and gifted us a mammoth steaming pile that only allows us to avoid bankruptcy by medical bills only if we promise to be good girls and never ever kill babies.

There's your Hope™ and Change™. You thought that Democrats were cool with just throwing gays under the bus? We're not stopping at anything. Screw the poor. Screw women. Screw the environment. Screw the Middle East. Screw accountability. Screw ending tax cuts. Screw our progressive base. Screw federal law and Roe v. Wade and the things we could do with a Democratic majority.

If you have a Senator that would otherwise vote to pass this bill (mine are all Republicans), please, for your rights, send them a letter. Give them a call. Do something! Otherwise, I'm afraid that this is the death-knell for reproductive rights.

How I came to yell at a woman on the street about feminism

My sister and I were walking back from the bus and a woman came riding up on her bike beside us, talking about how crappy men are and how unlucky in love she is. We mumbled in agreement, etc, and thought we left her behind us. Then she rode up again and started talking about how men are wusses and pansies and girls when they don't do their "job" (whatever that is). I told her I didn't appreciate her comparing weak men to women, saying that it put women in a hierarchy under men. Well, I said it less academically. Eventually we ended up shouting and she called us lesbians, and then somehow I ended up yelling across the gas station area, "'Man up' is not an acceptable term!" At that point, I became the yelling lady and the circle was complete. The student became the teacher.

Honestly, I started talking back to her because I've had enough with people not living their beliefs. I believe in gender equality, even - especially - in language. How we speak and the words and idioms we use reveals our inner biases and beliefs. Inclusive language in church is another fine example of this exact thing. If we're for something, well then, let's be for it.

All in all, I just didn't want to think later, "Why didn't I say anything?" Casual sexism is sexism is sexism.

Would I have been nearly as vocal if it was a man, or a person of color of any gender? No. Her whiteness and gender made me bold in ways I wouldn't have if it was another person. Well, maybe it didn't make me bold, but it made HER non-threatening. I may have said something, but definitely not yelling the way I was.

Would I have even said anything if it was in a group of my friends or family?

Casual sexism is sexism is sexism.