Is Ted being a good friend if he tells her all these difficult things that he thinks she should do? After all, it just really, really burns him that Sally’s having insult added to injury by leaving her job, AND that this shitty asswipe Sluggo is going to rape other women, too. And (it seems to Ted) that both situations could be preventible — but only if Sally took certain actions.

Does anyone have any suggestions for how Ted might encourage Sally to try to do something proactive about the rape (though maybe putting herself through more grief in the process), without becoming a complete dick himself? Or is that impossible? Maybe the best thing for Ted to do would be to stay mute about all of those unasked-for opinions of his, and simply offer emotional support in a positive way whenever/however it’s asked for. To remain as utterly non-judgmental of Sally as he could possibly manage.

Thoughts?

Via http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/08/discussion-thread-i-love-way-you-lie.html, I saw a discussion of Eminem’s new video “Love the Way You Lie” featuring Rhiannon. A good chunk of the discussion was talking about how this song/ video glamorizes domestic violence under the context by making first making the characters super sexy, and conflating “passion” with “violence”. And I can see that support for it- the video does come off as ambiguous, and there are lines in the song like “Maybe this is what happens when a volcano meets a tornado” suggesting that their relationship is just the result of two fiery personalities coming together.

But then, there was also discussion about the fact that this doesn’t look like a “classic” image of domestic violence, meaning that it doesn’t show an abuser as a monster and the women as a cringing victim a’ la Lifetime Original Movies, and this makes domestic violence look ambiguous in the video. Later, people challenge it saying that there was “no such thing as a perfect victim” and it made me think of two seperate things.

One was this post from No Longer Qivering where one the author talks about justifying leaving her abusive husband. The part that particularly resonated with me was:

I would attempt to explain the abuse. Often I would leave out the worst things as I had not processed them enough to verbalize them. In later years I would leave the worst things out because they were intensely humiliating. But still there were plenty of things I could say that sounded pretty awful; living under his constant rage, the threats to hurt me and kill me, the irrational behavior towards the children, the constant lying. If I managed to get that far the answer was always the same.

“If it was that bad why did you stay with him so many years? Why did you have all these children with him?”

In the blink of an eye I had gone from being condemned for leaving to being condemned for staying…..

It’s been a lesson for me though and I try and listen to people’s stories without ever asking those condemning questions. “Why did you go back to him?” “Why did you marry him?” “Why didn’t you see he was [somethingawful]”? I have to ask myself, does anyone ever ask the man “Why didn’t you love her and care for her so she wanted to stay with you?” But of course that is a fruitless question as abusers usually assert that they did love their partner and “gave her everything”.

Read the whole thing, it was an interesting can’t-win for leaving exercise.

It also reminded me of when I was a horrible little child, and I would get so MAD at my mother for, in my eyes “provoking” dad. My father was abusive, but why did she have to bother him with stuff like the bills when he was already so tired from work, and why couldn’t she just go along with him when he just wanted quiet, and why couldn’t she just LEAVE THINGS ALONE?! As an adult, I’m deeply ashamed of this mindset that I had, and realize that I was probably just one more voice keeping my mom staying with my dad. The day I saw my dad throw my mom into the coffee table, the first time that I knew he actually hit her (as opposed to “only” constantly belittling her, threatening her, and yelling at her) was the day that I did a 180-switch about who exactly was at fault here.

These three, seemingly unrelated things about domestic violence boils down to this: there is no such thing as a “perfect victim”. There is no one who looks perfect cringing, and decides to up and leave the first time she gets hit because he’s so clearly a monster and she’s just independent and not willing to take that crap (my biggest problem with “Enough”, really). Victims of domestic abuse sometimes “start” the fight by yelling, or asserting themselves in some way, and still can have their self-esteem so under-minded that they can’t leave (or any of the millions of reasons that women “don’t leave”, from money to children to no support). MRA’s frequently talk about “mutual combat” but that’s somewhat of a misnomer. Even in the video, when Megan Fox starts the fight by yelling and slapping ineffectively at the Dominic character, it is clear that she’s the victim. She can’t do a damn thing against him. He’s so much stronger than her in, and demonstrates this again and again. But, we have this idea that if women aren’t perfect, they don’t do all the right things, they don’t deserve “protection” and it’s not really domestic abuse. Victims of domestic violence can have terrible tempers, be lazy, be depressed, be any number of things that are, shall we say “human” and still be victims of domestic abuse and still need help and assistance. And abusers aren’t monsters- a lot of times it’s hard to leave an abuser because it is mixed up with love as much as fear.

We get a lot of conflicting messages from society about our interpersonal relationships that it makes it difficult to figure out normal, non-toxic relationships. And not just romantic ones- relationships in general. My father is abused my mom and is more than a little sexist. He also taught me how to throw a baseball and showed up to every single one of my baseball games. For every instance of him yelling, screaming, and basically acting like a time-bomb that we had to tip-toe around because the most random thing would set him off, there is probably another equally powerful memory of him being a loving, caring father. For every voice that says in society that we should shun batterers, there’s the conflicting message of loving your family no matter what.

I read somewhere (I thought No Longer Quivering, but I can’t find it now) a description of someone staying with an abusive husband. Paraphrased, it was something like “Yes, there were two incidents of him hitting me that month, but there were 43 times of hugging, 3 random flower deliveries, 6 nights of great sex, and hundreds of smiles and soft kisses”. I think this video, in it’s somewhat ambiguous way, tries to show that. Like, if you look at about the 1 minute mark, it shows Dominic throwing Megan Fox into a wall, and then punching it to the point that it leaves a whole. A flash later, they’re running up to that wall to have passionate sex, and it’s sort of implied that happens one right after another in it. But if you look again, you see that a) it’s a different wall, that doesn’t have a fist imprint and b) that they’re wearing different clothes. This I think says more like “we have this terrible, self-destructive fights, but we also have moments were things are wonderful together too, do they cancel each other out?”

Domestic violence isn’t about big monster against a cringing passive victim. It’s about a human victimizing another human. An abuser isn’t a monster, just a human doing something that is wrong and seriously fucked-up. An abused person isn’t some perfect snowflake in need of rescuing, but another human being in need of support because s/he is being controlled. And I think that showing that narratives surrounding domestic violence are more complicated than people assume, or opposing the idea that the victims of the simplistic narratives are the only ones worthy of help can only be a good thing.

This kid has been interesting to watch, though. Not that he’s done anything especially newsworthy to anyone who isn’t his family (ah, look how he smiles, and gurgles and coos!), but how people react and change because of him. Kid sister has always been a little flighty- she never really was capable of focusing for more than ten minutes, she was bubbly and she had a sort of laissez-fare attitude towards safety**. Now, she seems to have become extremely cautious. She wouldn’t leave her kid with our mom for an evening out, she’s apparently memorized a whole host of books on child development, and she runs and worries over every little bump and fuss. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, especially the research and effort she put in the kid, just weird. I never believed that “Having children makes you more mature” – I’ve seen too many really immature parents- but apparently there is an anecdata point in my little sister.

Also, I find it interesting how at three months the kid has already been exposed to demonstrating that he is a “boy”. They dress him up in tough little clothes, and I hear how “strong” he is, even though he’s actually adorable more than strong. His parents don’t know what to make of me, I coo to him “Who’s going to grow up to be a radical feminist- you are, you are. Yes, you’ll respect women and I’ll let you cry” and they start freaking out (despite the fact that what the kid most likely hears is “abada da da da auntie’s playing with me *giggle*). I keep telling them I’m going to send him a pink onesie, though they know it’s a false threat (I hate pink- it’s more likely going to be purple).

Finally, the parents are not raising him any particular faith (yet- my guess is they’ll probably cave and end up taking them to church when he’s older) but my mom’s already singing him Bible songs. So far, he’s one of the random babies that hates being song to***, but my kept trying to with songs like “Jesus Loves You”. After listening to this song again, I wonder why we teach this song to anyone.

For those not familiar, this song reads as follows:

Jesus loves me! this I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong;
they are weak but He is strong.

Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.

There are more lyrics, but like most songs, it’s the first verse and chorus everyone remembers. Simple lyrics, simple melody, a staple of most churches to brainwash little children. Kids, believe this because we repeat it four times! What’s that you say? Generally when someone loves you they demonstrate it by being there for you and not being imaginary? Yeah, but, look- repetition! And, a book says it! What’s that? You have a book that also says that trains can talk and that sky is falling? Those books are just fiction. My book is right (despite having no evidence backing that one up) and also, remember, you’re really weak so you better cozy up to the strong guy. Seriously, this is actually a pretty twisted thing to teach young children. My only hope is, hey, my sisters and I all heard and sang the song and we came out okay- probably the little rugrat will too.

*Eww, eww, fluids. Yuck. Also, it was a hard pregnancy on Kid Sister and I like my sleep too much. Oh, and money.
** For example, jumping out of the barn on to the trampoline, lighting tons of stuff on fire, cutting everything she could get mother’s scissors around, you get the idea.
*** Though for whatever reason, seemed to enjoy my unique song “Eating Various Baby Body Parts”. The lyrics were pretty much as follows: “Look at little baby toes. Yummy, yummy baby toes. I’m going to gobble them up!” This was accompanied by me grabbing onto the body part in question, and then during the “gobble them up” part fake-eating them. Repeat for other parts like fingers, belly, knees and ears. The kid thought it was hilarious, judging by the way he giggled and moved around. So I guess my songs are only actively more disturbing.

Oh get over it. You’re bitching that someone though you were hot enough to try and talk to.

Harassment is a compliment, dontcha know. Now, I could just go “Asshole says things assholes say” but I think this is a very small illustration of something that women, particularly feminists who point it out, deal with when we point to the many, everyday ways we have to deal with shit in a patriarchy and how those things are completely minimized.

Liberals and Progressives like to say things like “context matters” a lot. A noose hung at the “white” tree where some black kids dared venture is a very different symbol than a noose in a western movie (though they both have the broad stroke of being “threatening”). The context of the first makes it “racist”. The context of the second makes it different. The same is true of the shit women deal with.

If I was an alien being who popped in from the land of Egalitaria and I have never experienced sexism before in my life, the random frat guy that barked at me when I was waiting for the bus would have been baffling, but not rage-inducing to me. Was I doing something wrong in a social context? Was it a warning that I didn’t understand? I would assume from the looks that were delivered with it and the tone of the barking activity that this was a judgment of me in some context, and a judgment met with approval by his peers with him, but I would probably find it more weird than embarrassing. In the real world, it was rage-inducing because I knew exactly what I was doing “wrong”- I was being insufficiently attractive to a guy while in public. Hell, I’d probably say “I was existing in public while female” and that’s probably all the “wrong” there was. I went to happily joking with my husband while waiting for the bus to mad as hell in the context of a bark. I took care of it in my normally mature fashion*, but I had the added benefits of it being in public, with my Hubby, and they were unlikely to come back and escalate the situation. In a different time and place, I probably would have just been silent, realizing the powerlessness of the situation and the added danger that comes from the ever-present threat physical violence.**

The context of a guy barking at me was a context where guys feel free, nay encouraged, to comment on women’s body’s like they are entitled to them. One incident is something that is easily forgettable. One incident where you know that you are going to get an equal level of social support, or more level of social support is equally forgettable. Such an incidence happen to me once when I was walking down Minneapolis. An extremely inebriated individual yelled at me “Hey! Do you know you have really big tits!” not once, but twice at me and was aiming for a third time when I acknowledged him by saying “Yes, I know”. I had my Hubby, I had my friends with me laughing at this guy, but the friend of this guy was busy trying to get him to shut up and saying “not cools” at him. This incident did not make me feel embarrassed, nor threatened, nor have the effect of taking up any of my mental or emotional state. This event did not cause me to pause at the idea of wearing a shirt that was low-cut or a push-up bra. The only thing memorable about this incident is the fact that it was actually a little bit funny to my social group. This event is something, that while annoying, is easy to “get over”. Someone barking at me is in a context of social encouragement, dozens of similar events that I have to ignore if I want to be in public, and an all-pervasive attitude of entitlement.

One cut doesn’t kill someone. One cut probably doesn’t even scar, especially if you throw on some salve right away. But a million of the same size cuts can kill a person.

*Yelling at him to fuck off while delivering the boob of justice at him- if there’s nothing that I can do to get him to stop I’m getting an emotional release from the encounter.
** Or maybe not. I’ve been known to invade the personal space of someone who has been yelling at me in the middle of the night by myself. Being suicidal is marvelous freeing in the context of not being afraid of death.

Scholars of boys and men converged Wednesday at Wagner College, in Staten Island, N.Y., to announce the creation of the Foundation for Male Studies, which will support a conference and a journal targeted at exploring the triumphs and struggles of the XY-chromosomed of the human race — without needing to contextualize their ideas as being one half of a male-female binary or an offshoot of feminist theory.

…I read that sentence like, three times in a row and it still made no sense to me…so I hadn’t reached the giggle moment yet–

More than anything else, the event was a chance for supporters to frame men and boys as an underrepresented minority

THERE WE GO!

Lionel Tiger, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University, said the field takes its cues “from the notion that male and female organisms really are different”…The culprit, said Tiger, is feminism: “a well-meaning, highly successful, very colorful denigration of maleness as a force, as a phenomenon.”

Paul Nathanson, a researcher in religious studies at McGill University and co-author of a series of books on misandry — the hatred of men and boys — conceded that “there is some critique of feminism that’s going to be involved” in male studies. “There are some fundamental features of ideological feminism over the last 30 or 40 years that we need to question.”

He also decried “the institutionalization of misandry” which, he said, is “being generated by feminists, [though] not all feminists.”

Um…so basically what this is is the creation of the Foundation for Anti-Feminist Studies…it’s not really about men at all, is it? It’s Feminism Sucks 101! Which is why, truly, these folks are not calling their bullshit Men’s Studies, because, uh. Men’s Studies (an interdisciplinary academic field devoted to topics concerning men, masculinity, gender, and politics) already exists and has existed for the past 30 years.

Male studies’ combative tone toward feminism and women’s studies programs is one reason why Robert Heasley, president of the American Men’s Studies Association, turned down an invitation to speak at the event.

Yeah, I don’t suppose he’s too crazy about the idea of his actual, real academic discipline getting associated with a hate movement.

Edward Stevens, chair of the On Step Institute for Mental Health Research, said he wants to see male studies search for ways to improve male academic performance. “What are the ethical concerns of devoting 90 percent of resources to one gender?” he asked (though without explaining exactly what he meant).

LOL, seriously! which gender is that and how can I join up? Cuz that doesn’t describe either of the genders that I’m familiar with…this is SO funny! And amazing that anybody would want to waste their one-and-only adult life on this kind of crap, either founding it or, er, “studying” it. The Westboro Baptist Church, Ann Coulter, “Male” Studies…it takes all kinds…what would a deck of cards be without the jokers? I mean, I’ve never actually played a game of cards in which the jokers were ever used but I’d have missed them if they weren’t there in the deck when I pulled it out of the box! If I even noticed they weren’t there in the first place, I would SO miss ‘em!

I have kept my mouth shut about this…til now. But this is really the outside of enough, folks. I mean, come ON!

Study: Lack of breastfeeding costs lives, billions of dollars

(CNN) — If most new moms would breastfeed their babies for the first six months of life, it would save nearly 1,000 lives and billions of dollars each year,

Let me note now that I breastfed both my children til each one was a year old and breastfed exclusively through the first four months, so my absolute disgust with this article is in no way some kinda guilt-fueled defensive huffiness. I was a good little Mommie! I saved nearly 1,000 lives and billions of dollars each year! (I could use some of that money right now too, thanks–drop me an email, whoever is holding onto that?)

Dr. Melissa Bartick, one of the new study’s co-authors, says the vast majority of extra costs incurred each year could be saved “if 80 to 90 percent of women exclusively breastfed for as little as four months and if 90 percent of women would breastfeed some times until six months.”

Bartick and her co-author Arnold Reinhold found that most of the excess costs are due to premature deaths.

Oh good. Let’s examine these babies, heartlessly slaughtered by their mothers’ psychotic refusal to breastfeed! I mean, who knew…

Nearly all, 95 percent of these deaths, are attributed to three causes: sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); necrotizing enterocolitis, seen primarily in preterm babies and in which the lining of the intestinal wall dies; and lower respiratory infections such as pneumonia.

Breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the risk of all of these

So, basically what we have here is:

1. Breastfeeding reduces the risk of SIDS.
2. Breastfeeding reduces the risk of either having a preterm baby or of that preterm baby dying of necrotizing enterocolitis.
3. Breastfeeding reduces the risk of a baby either catching a lower respiratory infection or of dying of a lower respiratory infection.

I like no. 1, because SIDS is defined as a syndrome marked by the sudden death of an infant that is unexpected by history and remains unexplained after a thorough forensic autopsy and a detailed death scene investigation. In other words, SIDS isn’t actually a cause of death–it’s a lack of knowledge of the cause of death even after an autopsy and death scene investigation. Back to SIDS:

Risk factors that are not causes of SIDS

The cause of SIDS is unknown. Any proposed causation factor must be either necessary and sufficient to cause SIDS by itself (as the rabies virus causes rabies) or necessary and insufficient to cause SIDS by itself (as the typhus bacillus may or may not cause typhoid, a la ‘Typhoid Mary’).

Although studies have identified risk factors for SIDS, such as putting infants to bed on their stomachs, there has been little understanding of the syndrome’s biological cause or potential causes. The frequency of SIDS appears to be a strong function of the infant’s sex, age and ethnicity, and the education and socio-economic-status of the infant’s parents.

Listed below are several risk factors associated with increased probability of the syndrome based on information available prior to this recent study.

Prenatal risks

* maternal nicotine use (tobacco or nicotine patch)
* inadequate prenatal care
* inadequate prenatal nutrition
* use of heroin, cocaine and other drugs
* subsequent births less than one year apart
* alcohol use
* infant being overweight
* mother being overweight
* Teen pregnancy (if the baby has a teen mother, it has a greater risk)
* infant’s sex (60% of SIDS cases occur in males)

Post-natal risks

* mold
* low birth weight
* exposure to tobacco smoke
* prone sleep position
* not breastfeeding
* elevated or reduced room temperature
* excess bedding, clothing, soft sleep surface and stuffed animals
* Co-sleeping with parents or other siblings may increase risk for SIDS, but the mechanism remains unclear
* infant’s age (incidence rises from zero at birth, is highest from two to four months, and declines towards zero at one year)
* premature birth (increases risk of SIDS death by about 4 times. In 1995-1998 the U.S. SIDS rate for 37–39 weeks of gestation was 0.73/1000; The SIDS rate for 28–31 weeks of gestation was 2.39/1000)
* anemia

Well, NOT BREASTFEEDING is in there…along with twenty other risk factors. But why let that stop us from making massive, sweeping general statements about the hordes of babies dying from SIDS caused by lack of breastfeeding?

On to no. 2…I really don’t think we can make a case that breastfeeding has much to do with whether or not your baby is premature, given that breastfeeding can’t start prior to birth, so I’m assuming that the study authors are saying that the preterm baby specifically dying of necrotizing enterocolitis is caused by a lack of breastfeeding. So let’s look at that.

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a medical condition primarily seen in premature infants, where portions of the bowel undergo necrosis (tissue death).

NEC has no definitive known cause.[3] An infectious agent has been suspected, as cluster outbreaks in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) have been seen, but no common organism has been identified.

Not breasfeeding probably swept through those particular NICU wards, like a fever of anti-sisterhood!

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is suspected for causing necrotising enterocolitis in premature infants and neutropaenic cancer patients,[often secondary to gut colonisation. A combination of intestinal flora, inherent weakness in the neonatal immune system, empirical antibiotic use for 5 days or more,alterations in mesenteric blood flow and milk feeding may be factors.

Ooh, there it is!

NEC is almost never seen in infants before oral feedings are initiated.

Lest we lose our comprehension entirely of the situation in our eagerness to obsess on breastfeeding as akin to the Ten Commandments, reread that sentence. In other words, the primary risk factor, hands down, for necrotizing enterocolitis, is being born before your digestive system has finished maturing. Period. Your mother’s tits or lack thereof were not even involved. Rinse, repeat–

But, to be fair:

Formula feeding increases the risk of NEC by tenfold compared to infants who are fed breastmilk alone.

For more clarity as to why this is:

Neonatologists at the University of Iowa NICU reported on the importance of providing small amounts of trophic oral feeds of human milk starting ASAP, while the infant is being primarily fed intravenously, in order to prime the immature gut to mature and become ready to receive greater oral intake (Ziegler and Carlson, J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009 Mar;22(3):191-7.) Human milk from a milk bank or donor can be used if mother’s milk is unavailable.

This is a medical treatment, not a lifestyle choice. This has absolutely zero to do with whether or not you started supplementing Junior’s breastmilk diet with pureed pear when he was three months old, nor even if the second you got Janey out of the hospital and home you popped a bottle of Similac into her little mouth. Neither baby is at any risk anymore of necrotizing enterocolitis

Moving on to no. 3, a quick review of the medical literature out there will quickly inform you that, by far, the greatest risk factor for both catching and dying of a lower respiratory tract infection as a baby is…you guessed it…being born prematurely. Which, as we’ve already demonstrated, doesn’t have shit to do with breastfeeding as it’s hard to wiggle a nipple up your cervix while gestating and even if you are a circus-grade contortionist and can manage it, you’re not producing milk and your fetus wants and needs said milk about as much as it wants and needs a cellphone or new car. Let me repeat: neonatal mortality (occurring within 28 days of birth) accounts for the great majority of baby deaths, and the leading cause of neonatal death is prematurity. So, basically, the deaths we are talking about preventing with breastfeeding are postneonatal (between 28 days after birth and one year).

I couldn’t find a US study concentrating specifically on postneonatals, breastfeeding and lower respiratory infection, but I did find a UK study, and their breastfeeding statistics seem similar to ours, so here are the numbers:

Seventy percent of infants were breastfed (ever), 34% received breast milk for at least 4 months, and 1.2% were exclusively breastfed for at least 6 months. By 8 months of age, 3.2% of infants had been hospitalized for lower respiratory tract infection.

Wow. 98.8% of the babies weren’t exclusively breastfed and 66% of them didn’t even get breast milk for at least 4 months! And…96.8% of them did not catch a lower respiratory tract infection.

Population-attributable fractions suggest that an estimated 27% of lower respiratory tract infection hospitalizations could have been prevented each month by exclusive breastfeeding and 25% by partial breastfeeding.

So, put another way–breastfeeding wouldn’t have prevented about three-quarters of the lower respiratory tract infections from occurring at all.

FEARMONGERING AND WOMAN-BLAMING–MY FAVORITES!

In conclusion, I would like to point out that indeed, there are some benefits to the health of your child if you choose to breastfeed some or all of the time. However, if you don’t, you are not costing society billions of dollars nor are you causing any babies, including your own, to die of anything at all. And everyone who says you are is full of shit. End message!

Then listen to the bunnies.

Tell the FDA to Act on Emergency Contraception from Center for Reproductive Rights on Vimeo.

Created by “Once Was A Punkass” Marc Faletti.

I recently purchased emergency contraception for someone else–fear not, she’s seventeen! So I didn’t contribute to the delinquency of a minor or anything. I bought it for her for three reasons: (1) she lives in a very small town with only one pharmacy, where everyone knows everyone else, and word would probably have gotten back to her parents that she’d bought it, (2) she doesn’t have a car to get to the nearest city to buy it in relative anonymity and (3) she didn’t at the moment have the $40 it costs–she would have in a week, but a week would have been too late.

It wasn’t as easy to actually buy it as I hoped, though–the pharmacy in our small town didn’t have it in stock, and neither did the first three pharmacies that I called in the nearest city. (They did have very disapproving pharmacists, though.) I struck gold in the fourth pharmacy I called, where the phone was answered by a young, cheerful-sounding female voice who informed me that yes indeed, they did have emergency contraception in stock and don’t forget your ID with your date of birth on it when you come to the store to pick it up! I made sure I didn’t forget my ID; I don’t quite look my age, but I don’t look seventeen either! but I wasn’t about to give anyone any excuse to deny me the ability to purchase the stuff after I drove all the way there to get it–time was of the essence in this case.

That was over a month ago, and I am happy to report that she isn’t pregnant. (Not as happy as she is, I can assure you, but still, I’m happy.) I would think that everyone would agree with me that it’s for the best that a seventeen-year-old high school senior shouldn’t get pregnant…but what I find interesting is, apparently there are a lot of people out there who, if she had been a sixteen-year-old high school junior, would have forcefully disagreed and insisted that she should get pregnant. Or a fifteen-year-old high school sophomore. Or a fourteen-year-old high school freshman. This is bizarre and inexplicable to me, given that I think that the more the age of the prospective mother drops, the less and less suited to motherhood both physically and psychologically (and economically, while we’re at it) she is. Apparently others disagree.

Oh well.

Dreaded diseases dwindle with gene testing
Wider screening curbs inherited disorders such as cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs

Some of mankind’s most devastating inherited diseases appear to be declining, and a few have nearly disappeared, because more people are using genetic testing to decide whether to have children.

Births of babies with cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs and other less familiar disorders have dropped since testing came into wider use, The Associated Press found from a review of studies and interviews with numerous geneticists and other experts.

Uh-oh, I thought to myself. Because, you know, the screening itself doesn’t have any directly curative or preventative effect at all on inherited genetic disorders…what it does is allow people carrying genetic disorders to either decide not to reproduce or, more commonly, decide to abort any pregnancy with an embryo or fetus that carries the defective genes. Now, I personally have no problem with this; I am pro-choice through and through. However, I figured that there’d be a sizable contingent of folks out there who would have a b-i-g problem with the idea that giving out access to information that might influence someone to abort could ever, under any circumstances, be regarded as a good thing.

Yep, all I had to do was nip over to the “Comments” section after the article, and what was the very first comment..?

Very ironic and sad that a method touted as a “life-saving effort” is what gives an excuse to kill a baby.

Because of course, you know we are all on the lookout for excuses to kill babies. It’s a lot like being on the lookout for excuses to eat chocolate or go shopping!…sigh.

I can always console myself with the possibility that the hordes of people who are making remarks like that are just ignorant. Or stupid. Or both. But then, linked to the article, is another article written by some dude who presumably is not ignorant or stupid, given that he describes himself as Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.:

Disability-free world may not be a better place
Screening means fewer Down babies, but are we missing out?

A fascinating probe by the Associated Press suggests the reason. Genetic testing is leading to birth of fewer and fewer children with Down syndrome and other genetic disease in the United States.

The “fascinating probe” he refers to is, indeed, the article that originally caught my eye. And you can tell by the way he goes on in the article that he did actually read some of it, because he spends a little time talking about Tay-Sachs disease and Cystic Fibrosis. But his main point, the one he keeps returning to over and over again (after a few sops thrown out acknowledging that children born with Tay-Sachs, for instance, die by age 4) is

As some families with a Down syndrome child have noted, fewer kids with Down may mean fewer public programs, fewer resources in schools and for housing and less political clout.

On a trip to Ireland a few years ago, I was struck by a number of faces among the crowds. They were children with the tell-tale look of Down syndrome. What struck me was the realization that I hardly ever see these young faces out on the street in the United States.

…Down Syndrome, which can’t be detected at all through parental screening, which is what the original article is all about, because it’s caused by a mutation in the reproductive cells themselves, not in the parents’ cells. Rinse, repeat: Down Syndrome is not an inherited genetic disorder.

But since the heartstrings clearly get tugged the wrong way by discussing babies born with Tay-Sachs disease–it’s a hell of a lot harder to paint the prevention of that occurence as parents on the lookout for excuses to kill their babies–I suppose Concern Troll PhD couldn’t really use that as his handle, huh?

But in the midst of my aimless perusal of Men’s Rights-type sites, I stumbled across this article: 10 Lies Men Tell Themselves in Order to Stay in Abusive Relationships with their Wives or Girlfriends. I was struck by how very many of the Lies Men Tell Themselves appeared to be very similar, if not identical, to the Lies Women Tell Themselves in Order to Stay In Abusive Relationships. Perhaps not a dazzling revelation–abuse is abuse, regardless of the demographics of the abuser and abusee–but then, that’s also too simplistic of a statement to make. Some forms of abuse really don’t happen much without pre-existing factors that facilitate them; for example, while both parent-on-child and child-on-parent physical abuse does occur, it occurs far more often in the former case due to size disparity, economic imbalance, psychological dominance overwhelmingly in favor of the parent, etc. etc.

So I Googled a list for women and thought I’d look at them together, and see what similarities and differences did crop up in your typical Top Ten Lies list.

Reasons that are identical for both genders

1. I’ll lose my home, my kids and my money and assets.
2. Love conquers all.
3. Even living in a relationship without sex or affection is better than being alone.

Not very surprising. For number 1, what you are more likely to lose more of from that list can be influenced by your specific gender, but regardless of your gender the unpleasant reality is that if you leave an abusive partner, you are going to lose at least some of one or more of those things.

For number 2, self-delusion is hardly gender-specific, and our culture h-e-a-v-i-l-y romanticizes and encourages this particular point of view.

I’ll be honest and say that I don’t understand number 3 at all, but I know that a huge number of people do feel that way. I find it far worse to be lonely in the same room with someone than be lonely when I’m actually alone in the room; having someone there that’s supposed to love and desire you but doesn’t is the most miserable tease in the world.

Reasons that are similar for both genders

1. Male version:I made a commitment and I honor my commitments.
Female version:It is my duty to make my relationship work.

2. Male version:If I just work a little harder at the relationship, it will get better.
Female version:He can change if I’m just committed enough.

3.Male version:My kid(s) are okay because she doesn’t yell at them.
Female version:I need to keep our family together for the children’s sake.

The differences are not large in each statement–they are interesting in the ways each illustrates the culturally ingrained male/female mindsets, but the central theme in each is the same. For number 1, domestic harmony is a woman’s responsibility and domestic prosperity is a man’s (of course I don’t agree with that, duh! but that is the prevailing meme). But the central theme of a reluctance to fail in one’s life-role responsibilities crosses the gender line.

For number 2, the interesting part is that both genders see the man as the active partner and the woman as the passive partner–the man must work harder on his actions/ the woman must stand back and allow the man time and space to work harder on his actions. Both, of course, are mistaken for the same reason–the abusive person is not abusive because of anything you are doing, not because you are either not doing enough or doing too much.

For number 3, both sexes view the children and mother as an inseparable unit; for the man, that she abuses him has nothing to do with their children, and for the woman, that if she leaves him their children will automatically lose their father. The central fallacy is that it’s better for children to grow up in a home where one parent abuses another than to grow up with two divorced parents–this unfortunate notion, even after being pretty thoroughly debunked in recent times, continues to persist in our culture.

Reasons that are the same thematically, but the angle of approach is 180 degrees opposite for the genders:

Male version: I’m strong. I can take the abuse, and The abuse is not that bad.
Female version:He may seriously injure me or kill me if I try to leave.

I think the reason behind this one is that men are on average taller, heavier, stronger and faster than women. Men simply aren’t as likely to fear severe physical damage at the hands of a woman, and also are far less likely to actually experience severe physical damage at the hands of a woman–even those who argue over the gender-based incidence of physical abuse in relationships don’t argue that when it does occur, the woman is far more likely to end up really hurt–and in terms of domestic murders, the number of women done in by their current or previous man far, far exceeds the opposite dynamic. And of course, men are socialized to trivialize physical violence committed against themselves, whereas women are socialized to disproportionately fear it.

Reasons that are really gender-specific, with no opposite-sex analogue:

Male: All relationships have conflict. Conflict is healthy.

Female I’m so awful that nobody else will ever want me; I may even deserve this.

This is a total guess, since I was surprised to see this on the list at all given the prevailing cliche that men are deeply allergic to drama in their romantic relationships with women–but if this is truly a common male justification, I would think that perhaps men are more likely to regard a certain amount of conflict as normal because it characterizes so much more of their everyday interactions with everyone else. If you’ve ever spent any time around heavy-majority male groups, you know that there is a lot of posturing, challenging, insulting and so forth that goes on as a routine activity. Men are accustomed to fairly open fighting for their place in the hierarchy of whatever unit they happen to be in, so when it happens at home, I’m guessing they’re not as horrified as your average woman, nor as immediately convinced that it’s a sign of a serious problem.

For women, it does indeed often boil down to self-esteem issues. Women definitely have a tendency to rate themselves internally based on what the men in their life think of them–I’ve done it too often myself subconsciously (and it’s an unpleasant realization when it finally surfaces to the conscious level that that IS what you’re doing) to be able to pooh-pooh it away. Men don’t seem to have such a problem with internalizing things like this, with the glaring exception of personal sexual ability.

Anybody else have any thoughts about all this..?