Hahaha, guys, I probably shouldn't write posts when I am furious but SERIOUSLY WORLD? SERIOUSLY?

Utah's House and Senate have passed a bill that would criminalize miscarriage.

The bill doesn't affect legally obtained abortions (though good luck getting one of those, ladies!), but it does criminalize anything a woman does outside a doctor's care/supervision that induces a miscarriage or abortion. Penalties range up to life in prison.

Feministing has a bunch of links, and if you want to vent (AND I SURE DO), there's always the unfunnybusiness post on the matter. From the RH Reality check article:

The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because, at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.


As someone in unfunnybusiness noted:

In a country where birth control is available and abortion is legal, a 17-year-old girl pays a man to beat her up to induce a miscarriage and the only PROBLEM you see here is that she can't be charged with attempted murder?

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

That clusterfuck is beyond words.

I don't understand, guys. I just don't.

Not only is this a superfun slippery slope to criminalizing "reckless" behaviour while pregnant (or even "pre-pregnant", bob and mary help us all), whether you're aware of your pregnancy or not— not only are the causes of miscarriage and certain conditions like fetal alcohol syndrome poorly understood but blamed on women anyway and used to control womens' choices and behaviour — but, in the particular case that sparked this, seriously, it's the GIRL who's the problem? What the fuck happened to the MAN who beat her up for money?

In fact, what happens to the guy in all of these scenarios? Where is the man in all of these discussions of reproductive responsibility? Where is the reliable hormonal birth control for men? Where is the medicalization of their private lives and bodies, the yearly checkups they must have if they want to be able to control their reproductive state? Where's the recommendation that men get the Gardasil HPV vaccine? Where is the criminalization of reproductive coercion?

Actually? You know what? Let's set aside individuals. How about society's part in this failure? Where is the comprehensive sexual and reproductive education for our children and youth? Where is the freely available contraception? If every life is to be valued and loved, where is the extravagant amount of funding for foster care of unwanted children? Where are the open adoptions? If really seriously every life is to be valued, and not just you know, white people's lives, what are we doing to address the massive disparity in abortion, STI, and teen pregnancy rates between black and white women? Every life is precious? Are you sure??

Fuck me sideways, people. Are you fucking kidding me?


If we are going to talk about women, and women's bodies (newsflash: women are not solely their bodies), and women's choices, then — oh no, wait a minute, I lied. We can't talk about women's choices, because women can't be trusted to make choices.

That's what this comes down to. I see no way around that.

This is about whether or not women can be trusted to make choices about their lives, their reproductive state, their children. About life. The "pro-life" label annoys me on many grounds, many of which — how many pro-lifers are also for the death penalty, how many pro-lifers oppose giving their tax dollars to social programs that help mothers and children — can be summed up very simply: the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth. But the real reason this label annoys me is that it plays a short, ugly game of linguistic acrobatics: the label implies that the opposing position is somehow NOT pro-life.

I was talking / raving at [personal profile] seventhe about this, and she hit it pretty square (QWP): I hate using "pro-life" because, uh, we're all pro-life! NOBODY *WANTS* A GODDAM ABORTION OKAY. Nobody's ever like "Man, am I gonna get pregnant and then abort the shit out of it." We just understand that sometimes life, overall, or the quality thereof, is better served in one way than another?

To me, the pro-choice movement is ALSO a pro-life movement — just with a broader definition of "life". Not restricted to whether or not a fetus has a heartbeat and is born alive, but broadly encompassing the entirety of life, with all its complications and richness. Like, you know. Womens' lives. The quality of womens' lives, not simply whether she is breathing or not. Hell, this of course includes the child, too — the quality of life of a child born to a mother didn't want a child and can't support one, a child given away to a foster care system that is severely underfunded thanks to the tax-chariness of the same people who insisted upon that child being carried to term. Many people, of course, go through that system fine and live full lives and are awesome despite how deeply society has failed them. But if we're going to be pro-life, can't we be pro-life start to finish? Can't we fund programs for children (foster, adopted, or not), fund every child's education and enrichment? Can't we give every person the health care they need?

(Everything is connected.)

Can't we trust a woman to think hard about her choices and in the end say, "no, this is not what I want for my life, not what I want for any child of mine"? That's what it comes down to. That is it. Either you think women are somehow insensible of the fact that abortion is, you know, ABORTION, and can't be trusted to choose for themselves... or you believe women are human beings with brains and souls and wants and needs. We all remember that superbowl ad about Tim Tebow and his mother, right? She made a choice to carry her son to term, against medical advice. And here I was going YES YES THAT IS WHAT WE WANT. That is EXACTLY what we want, letting women choose. Which Planned Parenthood's response makes pretty clear (though I kind of wish they'd let women speak for themselves, but I suspect this was a strategic use of cranking it up to 11). This is about trusting women to make choices for themselves, for their own reasons.

Christ on a cracker.

Also worth mentioning: the HUGE pressure on women to reproduce— even when they can't afford to. A well-known fertility clinic in my area has been running a particular radio ad for months. I sadly can't find a copy of the ad online to actually quote it, but the gist goes like this: there's a recession, times are tough, but I can still spend heaps of money on fertility treatments and have a baby even when I can barely afford my own life. This isn't the ad I'm thinking of, but it's from the same center and is close enough. And then there is the presumption that a family without children is incomplete, not a proper family, so when are going to start a family? You better do it before you're 30, or 90% of your eggs will shrivel up! And then it's back to the fertility clinic, but watch out, if you have the gall to delay having children for that long you will probably have some kind of gross disabled kid. Better get a gene scan just to make sure and keep working on those cures! Unless you're some lazy unemployed slut, in which case you should be sterilized against your will. Feminists / liberals / pro-choicers / whathaveyou don't get a free pass here, either, not when shit like this and this needs to be said. Not to mention this and this. Not when you use a misogynist slur to describe one of the lived realities of women in childbirth. In short: white, non-disabled upper-class women are to have white, non-disabled children, whether they want them or no, and be goddamn happy about it.


In sum: fuck you, lawmakers of Utah. Fuck you and the storm of stupidity you rode in on.

[I know I haven't even come close to covering all the issues surrounding this bill, and I chose to focus on some of the implications of the case that sparked it. Others have done a better job, and you can find them linked in the earlier parts of this post.]
justira: (This is not sparta)
Hey so! Consent issues!

So [personal profile] renay recently read and reviewed David Inside Out, by Lee Bantle. The book includes an incident she found very problematic in terms of consent, so in deference to possible triggering (this is your warning!) and spoiling people, I refer you to that review rather than summarizing it here. Please note also that the author himself commented and offered quotes from the book to contextualize the event; you should read his whole comment as well.

The particular comment and subsequent discussion also includes accusations of homophobia against [personal profile] renay, which I am not going to focus on. Full disclosure: [personal profile] renay is my friend and I feel compelled to publicly defend her. I find these accusations inappropriate and have many reasons for this assessment. However, further in the spirit of full disclosure: I had planned, before Bantle posted his response, to read David Inside Out myself and review it, because [personal profile] renay's review piqued my interest. I am hoping that Mr. Bantle will regard my review as I intend it, as my own personal opinion, and would prefer not to engage with him (yet, right now) about his behaviour and instead focus only on his book.

I'm also not going to address the flaws in [personal profile] renay's review; others, including Bantle himself, have pointed out other things she could have included in her review. And it's true, she didn't talk as much about the writing, the female characters, etc. She focused instead on an issue she found personal and important, at the expense of everything else the book had to offer. I'm not here to examine that.

There are so many other issues I will not have time or space to discuss in detail here, including serious gender issues, the divide between the experiences of straight women and gay men, alcohol as a factor in our society in general even outside consent issues.

That said, I'm going to talk about consent issues here. Specifically, consent in established relationships, consent once vs. consent always, and consent under the influence. On a related issue, I want to also discuss realistic portrayals and how realism is handled in media.

Yes Means Yes. Only. Ever. )


'Realistic Portrayal' is Not a Defense )

I wish I could be more articulate. I wish I could say this more beautifully, more clearly. In fewer words. (Heh.) But this is all I have.

Only "yes" means "yes". Consent once does not mean consent always. Consent to one sex act does not mean consent to all sex acts. Portraying the quite realistic situation of grey-area or lack of consent does not give you a free pass for props, does not make you a hero for daring to address reality. You have to keep going. You have to keep working. You have to think, examine, re-present. I expect more.
Daily Doodle: Random generic skinny chick. Something wrong with her neck/shoulders. Head largish and some (prolly not all) proportion weirdness on purpose -- a little cartoony. I tried on purpose to do with without drawing guidelines underneath like I usually do (outline of head/skull with bisecting lines horizontally and vertically); this started with her eyes and worked outward
Time: 5-10 mins, wasn't counting

Daily Doodle: Sort of cartoony portrait of some chick )


Yuletide's "Umbrella Fandoms" Policy

So I was putzing around the Yuletide page when I saw that they no longer allowed any Final Fantasy or a number of other "umbrella" canons, as they put it. [livejournal.com profile] bottle_of_shine was pretty disappointed when I told her, and I've been trying to come up with an analogy to the situation for a while. I think I've found one that illustrates some of the difficulties.

Take a weekly (or monthly) anthology such as Shounen Jump. Shounen Jump serializes twenty-plus series right now )


Posting Warnings on Fanworks

There's been a bit of debate about this. I'm honestly not seeing the problem very well. I understand not wanting to spoil your own story (trust me, I understand, I have serious fic disclosure issues), I have no idea how one could place that concern above other people's mental health. I'm thinking specifically of warning for rape, sexual violence, and/or consent issues. You'd think it does not need to be said that rape and sexual violence are serious issue, and if you've been a victim of such, it's not something you just get over, but apparently it does?

The arguments I've seen going "if we start warning for rape soon we will be warning for kittens, blue things, and use or left pinkie toe!" don't fly with me. Slippery slope is a logical fallacy to begin with, but it's so seriously out of place here )

But if none of that bothers or interests you, I'm going to repeat: the choice is not spoiling a fanfic on the internets vs. the mental health of someone who has undergone a horrific event. Really guys? Really?



Sexting and Teen Privacy

I heard a piece on the news radio today about "sexting", and have I mentioned that that is one of the stupider neologisms to come out of this decade? But what really bothered me is that the piece was clearly supporting parents stalking their teens' myspace accounts and monitoring their phone use -- basically keeping an eagle eye on their sex lives to make sure there weren't any shenanigans.

Sexting has been in the news a lot recently and I cannot stand it, from the sex-phobic attitude to the endless cases of a girl daring to take pictures of her own naked body and entrust them to her sexual partner and then being publicly shamed for it. A lot of people say parents should talk to their teens about how privacy works these days (hint: not very well), and warn them about keeping their sex lives private and leaving no evidence, as it were. And it's true, there are serious privacy concerns these days, and information your entrust to one person or place pretty much never stays only there.

But that's missing the bigger issues. In my view, there are two of them.
(1) Teens have sex. Get over it and help them do it right.
ETA: [livejournal.com profile] shanaqui points out that teen boys suffer, too, when they're brought up on child porn charges for shit like this. I kind of filed that under (1) in my head, but I agree it's worth pointing out as also completely bonkers.
(2) Women own their bodies and can do whatever the hell they want with them. A woman being proud of her body or displaying it to her partner is not a shameful act.
It's the second one that people seem to have more trouble with, because it's always these pictures of girls getting out and then their reputations are ruined for life, pretty much. And in the current social climate -- sad but trufax! -- that kind of thing really does hit your rep pretty hard. So sure, be really careful when you do it. But you shouldn't need to be so worried about -- gasp! -- it being known that you had sex ever. So much stigma with these pictures! I'm waiting for when such a leak of nudie pics brings something along the lines of "Oh whoops, that is probably a little embarrassing, I don't think she meant for us to see those awesome boobies" instead of "Haha, look at that slut! She's not fit for any public position ever!" Especially when the boyfriend or ex leaks these I find it infuriating when the girl is blamed for it -- she shouldn't have taken pictures of herself/let him take pics of her! The girl is socially crippled, the boy is charged with child porn, and pretty much everyone loses. Awesome.
Found this via [livejournal.com profile] unfunnybusiness over on journalfen. Should be sleeping/eating/thesising but thought this should be shared:


I want equality in more than my workplace. I'd like it in the park, in the elevator, in my experience at McDonald's, when I get my car fixed, when I go to a fancy restaurant, when I want an abortion, when I want my birth control, when I walk down the street at 4 AM slightly drunk, and when I go to the fucking movies. Is it too much to ask that people recognize my equality at all times? Do I have to decide when I get to be human and when I get to be a receptacle for the male fantasy of "all she needs is a deep dicking"? Oh wait, no. The men get to decide when I get my quaint little equality that I'm always caterwauling about.


Yes.

I'm not familiar with the site this was posted at; not really saying anything on the topic there or the ensuing argument/wank, but... that one paragraph, that I like.
So, every Friday, I have a meeting in the morning with the group I've been put on that's in charge of creating non-blindness-inducing layouts for my entire branch. At first I was really nervous about being on this team because hell, I'm young, I'm new, and well, it's not like I'm extraordinary at design.

However, after a couple months of coming to these meetings, it is clear: I am on this group because the medium amount of talent I have in this field is just leagues above the current design talent in the department. This is REALLY DEPRESSING because seriously, I'm no genius here. I like to design, but my strength is all-around web development, because I like to play with code.

Nonetheless, every Friday you can count on me being pissed off 10 billion different ways at the incompetence here. My peeves include everything from gross offenses against aesthetics to the inability of the other designer on the team to understand this whole web standards thing. I swear, the man has no idea how to work with CSS. My previous rant on this mess is here.

I don't feel like ranting forever and ever about this subject today, so I will just include a couple of examples and a gem of a quote from this guy.

We were assigned different types of layouts to make.

Explanations and our two layouts )

At one point, I brought up the issue of colour schemes, thinking I needed to create several different palettes for my design so each group could implement a unique colour scheme, and also because there was too much blue and I needed highlight colours. This guy's answer? Keeping in mind that he's a DESIGNER?

"I'm a guy, I don't care about colours."

...

Right.

Well, on a different note, I've been trying to finally come up with a layout for my personal site that I don't hate. I've been trying really hard to wean myself off muted/dark colours, and so I was trying to go for something bright and fun and clean. This is the current incarnation:


(click thumb for full size -- the actual screencap is super-wide so I can see how it looks on huge monitors)


It is FAR from finalized, but I think I like the direction it's going. Feedback is welcome =D

Profile

justira

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags