Checking facebook this morning and I came across an article from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, entitled "Governing Motherhood" by Phyllis L. F. Rippeyoung.
At first I was apprehensive about where she was going with the article. After reading through it, I feel the authour raises some very good points.
Dr.Sears and other likeminded "parenting experts" seem to have these unbelievably unrealistic expectations of mothers. Extended breastfeeding, baby wearing, co-sleeping are all discussed like they aren't any big thing, like they are the only things mothers could and should be doing to end up with well rounded amazing adults. They (mostly men) discuss these things like there is no good reason for a woman to not commit to spending her life putting her children first. Now, I don't disagree that children should be a priority, but they shouldn't be THE priority. Putting aside just the financial reasons why extended breastfeeding, etc. are unrealistic for most women, the emotional tolls these "practices" take on women should be enough to make any expert second guess their advice. Mothers are people with children, they don't exist solely for the child, they don't exist solely for the husband. We have needs, wants, desires, dreams, we need to be emotionally nurtured while we are emotionally nurturing our families. We need independence, and we need people to finally respect that we are people first, and mothers second.
I have the upmost respect for any mother, father, parent, who can afford both financially and emotionally to live their lives just for their children but that isn't, and won't ever be me. I need more. And I fully believe my child needs me to be more.
My daughter needs me to be a strong role model for her. She needs to see that women can be whatever they want to be, they can accomplish amazing things, and they can make real, sustainable differences. These successes should never come at the health and happiness of the child, absolutely, but that should be said for both parents. Why is no one lecturing the father that spends every night at the office trying to get ahead? What about the off road trucker who leaves for weeks at a time? Why is no one telling them they should put their emotions, dreams and financial well being to the wayside so they can be present, strong father figures for their children? Why are all of the expectations on moms?
This society is so fucked up. We were raised to believe that women should be strong, and successful, yet as adults we are constantly being told we aren't good enough to get the same jobs as men, we aren't good enough to be paid the same for the same work as men, we should be putting everything aside for our children, we should be expected to work and still get home and clean the house. Men are expected to be successful, and that certainly comes with it's own pressures, but they don't experience half of the societal pressures women face. We are never good enough. There is always some new expert selling us on our insecurities. There are so many people literally profiting on the fact that women are not good enough.
When will enough be enough? When will we finally say NO, we are good enough. NO, we will not work a full time job and take care of our husbands and families the way a 50s SAHM did. NO, we will not lose our identities so that our children can be considered "healthy" to an expert who has ZERO scientific and empirical evidence to back up his claims.
Women have made major strides towards equality, but we still have a long way to go. Until I see a book by Dr.Sears or any of his kin telling a dad they aren't good enough or should be dedicating their lives to their children, we will never be equal. And until we stand up and stop buying the crap their feeding us, this will never happen.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Friday, March 2, 2012
Georgia's Newest Attack on the Rights of Individuals
*facepalm*
"The bill was introduced by State Reps. Don Balfour (R-Snellville), Bill Hamrick (R-Carrollton), Bill Cowsert (R-Athens), and Ross Tolleson (R-Perry). All four Senators are members of an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC). ALEC bring corporations and lawmakers together to draft template legislation that is introduced in other states to change policy. ALEC claims to be nonpartisan but is funded by several right-wing thing tanks."
Having sold themselves to corporate interests long ago, four Georgia senators are looking to legislate away First Amendment Rights on the advice of corporations (surprised?). They are putting through a bill that would make it a felony to picket (in particular to picket a CEO's house). Could they not even try to look like they're standing up for voters? At least a little? This bill is just more proof that the Republican Party (both federally and at the state level) or serving the interest of the wealthy, and have zero interest in standing up for actual voters.
The ability to protest is a First Amendment right, and these Republican senators are trying to legislate it away. How is this standing up for freedom, or respecting the constitution (y'know those two things that Republicans keep saying they're trying to protect)?
Now, you might want to argue that they believe they are protecting constitutional rights, mainly the CEO's right to privacy (your privacy's not important though). However:
"“In addition, they have from the beginning of the Session been looking like they want to find Constitutional challenges and actually pass bills that they know are unconstitutional but to use them as a way to overturn federal law,” Pellegrini said."
There is no defence for this. This party claims they stand for the Constitution, YET they knowingly violate it all of the time! They are constantly threatening the rights of the individual, and attempting to re-interpret and change it to suit their own personal agendas.
If this goes through the Republican Party will have successfully legislated one of your First Amendment Rights away from you, fucking amazing.
"To amend Chapter 6 of Title 34 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to labor organizations and labor relations, so as to provide that certain provisions prohibiting mass picketing shall apply to certain private residences; to provide for an action to enjoin unlawful mass picketing; to provide for punishment and penalties; to provide for injunctive relief; to provide for public policy concerning refusal or decision to withdraw from a labor union or employee organization; to provide for certain contract and agreement employment rights; to provide for the development by the Department of Labor of employee rights information; to provide certain posting requirements by private employers; to provide for enforcement; to provide for changes to agreements and contracts permitting labor organizations to deduct fees from employees' earnings; to amend Code Section 16-7-21, relating to criminal trespass, so as to provide for both criminal trespass and criminal conspiracy; to provide for punishment and fines; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes."
Why the Anti-Choice movement is wrong.
For this piece I will be referring to "pro-life" as "anti-choice" because let's face it, none of us are against life, that's a fallacy that's used to manipulate people and make the pro-choice movement come off as immoral and "anti-life" which is bullshit.
The difference between the two views is this: No one is going to force someone who believes life begins at conception to get an abortion (or at this point even perform an abortion), but by trying to make their beliefs legislation they are literally forcing their beliefs on everyone, forcing their belief that life begins at conception and their religious values onto the rest of the country. So much so that they attempt legislation that would prevent a pro-choice doctor from performing abortions, even those that are medically necessary.
We hear so much about anti-choice doctor's rights, that they should be allowed to morally object to giving abortions, but yet these same people have zero problem trying to pass legislation that would prevent a pro-choice doctor from doing something he feels is morally just. So anti-choice doctors should get the choice whether or not to perform an abortion but a pro-choice doctor isn't given the same right. Fan fucking tastic.
Their morals mean more than our morals apparently, and it's that sort of hypocrisy that I can't stomach.
Want to add (thank you Katie :D):
Pro-Choice does not mean you are pro-abortion, or that you don't believe that life begins at conception, it means that you believe in the woman's right to choose.
Want to add (thank you Katie :D):
Pro-Choice does not mean you are pro-abortion, or that you don't believe that life begins at conception, it means that you believe in the woman's right to choose.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
A Rant
Inspired by: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/gop-struggles-to-contain-birth-control-fallout.php?ref=fpb
"Blunt introduced the legislation at the height of the contretemps over the Obama administration’s contraception rule, and Republicans pushed hard to secure a vote for it as an amendment to an unrelated transportation bill."
Attaching a contraception bill to a transportation bill is a dirty move, that sort of game playing is so frustrating! This is done to get people who would otherwise disapprove or vote down the bill to pass it, they attach it to useful, reasonable legislation in order to manipulate votes. I hate it.
“[T]he Majority Leader often offers amendments on behalf of other Senators—of both parties. And I appreciate the Majority Leader pointing out that Republicans insisted on having this vote. As everyone saw from the floor speeches [Wednesday], there is significant interest in protecting religious liberty despite the President’s health care bill’s mandate.”
Deflection. I mean serious deflection. Their amendment would give ANY employer the ability to decide what employees insurance provides. That's ridiculous. This amendment would take rights away from the INDIVIDUAL and give them to Corporations and Religious Institutions. Awesome, exactly what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect people from.
I am thrilled that this bill was defeated today. This would have been terrible for
Women's rights, for reproductive rights, and for American freedom in general! The GOP is playing some serious games right now. If they're going to play this dirty to get ideological legislation through when they aren't in charge, what lines would they be willing to cross if they get all of the power?
"Republican aides privately say the cause is not an ideal point of focus, an admission evinced by the GOP’s recent messaging blitz on fuel prices."
Oh so you mean it's not a coincidence that all of a sudden Republicans are screaming about Obama and the price of gas? I'm shocked.
The president does not control the price of gas, this correlation is nothing more than rhetoric, and grasping at straws.
"Crude oil - The biggest portion of the cost of gas goes to the crude-oil suppliers. This is determined by the world's oil-exporting nations, particularly the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which you will learn more about in the next section. The amount of crude oil these countries produce determines the price of a barrel of oil. Crude-oil prices averaged around $35 per barrel (1 barrel = 42 gallons or 158.99 L) in 2004. And, after Hurricane Katrina, some prices were almost double that. In April 2008, crude-oil prices averaged around $104.74 per barrel. During that month, the price of oil reached a record price of almost $120 a barrel [source:DOE]. By May 16, prices had topped $117 per barrel [source:MarketWatch]. On May 22, markets in New York and London reported prices past $135 per barreland, and on July 11, oil hit an all-time high of $147 [source: Forbes, New York Sun]. Analysts speculated that everything from investment in oil futures to increasing demand from countries like India and China contributed to the spike in price.
Sometimes, gas prices go up even though there is plenty of crude oil on the market. It depends on what kind of oil it is. Oil can be classified as heavy or light, and as sweet or sour (no one actually tastes the oil, that's just what they call it). Light, sweet crude is easier and cheaper to refine, but supplies have been running low. There's plenty of heavy, sour crude available in the world, but refineries, particularly those in the U.S., have to undergo costly retooling to handle it."
(Source http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-consumption/gas-price1.htm)
Do you know what did affect the price of gas? That massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. That massive oil spill that BP tried as hard as they could to not be responsible for. And do you know how they got away with it for as long as they did? That wonderful thing called Neo Liberalism and the "Free Market" which has encouraged countries to strip away regulations all in the name of Profit. So BP doesn't have to do as many checks to make sure their shit isn't going to explode so that CEO's that aren't even from the US can make money. Fucking Awesome.
Also, and I want to stress this, the Republicans are not fiscally responsible. Both Bush's and Reagan drove up MASSIVE deficits! The fiscally responsible conservative is a myth, and people really need to stop believing it.
So since they aren't fiscally responsible, and since they've done absolutely NOTHING for the economy, people who give these people their votes will be doing so based on ideological ideals alone. That means if you don't agree with their stances on abortion and Equal marriage and you vote for them, you'll be giving them license to focus on those ideologies. These Dangerous ideals that really do run the risk of taking what was once considered one of the most free countries in the world and making it unbelievably repressive, and ruled by religion.
"Blunt introduced the legislation at the height of the contretemps over the Obama administration’s contraception rule, and Republicans pushed hard to secure a vote for it as an amendment to an unrelated transportation bill."
Attaching a contraception bill to a transportation bill is a dirty move, that sort of game playing is so frustrating! This is done to get people who would otherwise disapprove or vote down the bill to pass it, they attach it to useful, reasonable legislation in order to manipulate votes. I hate it.
“[T]he Majority Leader often offers amendments on behalf of other Senators—of both parties. And I appreciate the Majority Leader pointing out that Republicans insisted on having this vote. As everyone saw from the floor speeches [Wednesday], there is significant interest in protecting religious liberty despite the President’s health care bill’s mandate.”
Deflection. I mean serious deflection. Their amendment would give ANY employer the ability to decide what employees insurance provides. That's ridiculous. This amendment would take rights away from the INDIVIDUAL and give them to Corporations and Religious Institutions. Awesome, exactly what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect people from.
I am thrilled that this bill was defeated today. This would have been terrible for
Women's rights, for reproductive rights, and for American freedom in general! The GOP is playing some serious games right now. If they're going to play this dirty to get ideological legislation through when they aren't in charge, what lines would they be willing to cross if they get all of the power?
"Republican aides privately say the cause is not an ideal point of focus, an admission evinced by the GOP’s recent messaging blitz on fuel prices."
Oh so you mean it's not a coincidence that all of a sudden Republicans are screaming about Obama and the price of gas? I'm shocked.
The president does not control the price of gas, this correlation is nothing more than rhetoric, and grasping at straws.
"Crude oil - The biggest portion of the cost of gas goes to the crude-oil suppliers. This is determined by the world's oil-exporting nations, particularly the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which you will learn more about in the next section. The amount of crude oil these countries produce determines the price of a barrel of oil. Crude-oil prices averaged around $35 per barrel (1 barrel = 42 gallons or 158.99 L) in 2004. And, after Hurricane Katrina, some prices were almost double that. In April 2008, crude-oil prices averaged around $104.74 per barrel. During that month, the price of oil reached a record price of almost $120 a barrel [source:DOE]. By May 16, prices had topped $117 per barrel [source:MarketWatch]. On May 22, markets in New York and London reported prices past $135 per barreland, and on July 11, oil hit an all-time high of $147 [source: Forbes, New York Sun]. Analysts speculated that everything from investment in oil futures to increasing demand from countries like India and China contributed to the spike in price.
Sometimes, gas prices go up even though there is plenty of crude oil on the market. It depends on what kind of oil it is. Oil can be classified as heavy or light, and as sweet or sour (no one actually tastes the oil, that's just what they call it). Light, sweet crude is easier and cheaper to refine, but supplies have been running low. There's plenty of heavy, sour crude available in the world, but refineries, particularly those in the U.S., have to undergo costly retooling to handle it."
(Source http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-consumption/gas-price1.htm)
Do you know what did affect the price of gas? That massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. That massive oil spill that BP tried as hard as they could to not be responsible for. And do you know how they got away with it for as long as they did? That wonderful thing called Neo Liberalism and the "Free Market" which has encouraged countries to strip away regulations all in the name of Profit. So BP doesn't have to do as many checks to make sure their shit isn't going to explode so that CEO's that aren't even from the US can make money. Fucking Awesome.
Also, and I want to stress this, the Republicans are not fiscally responsible. Both Bush's and Reagan drove up MASSIVE deficits! The fiscally responsible conservative is a myth, and people really need to stop believing it.
So since they aren't fiscally responsible, and since they've done absolutely NOTHING for the economy, people who give these people their votes will be doing so based on ideological ideals alone. That means if you don't agree with their stances on abortion and Equal marriage and you vote for them, you'll be giving them license to focus on those ideologies. These Dangerous ideals that really do run the risk of taking what was once considered one of the most free countries in the world and making it unbelievably repressive, and ruled by religion.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)