Lessons for Girls: You Can Say No

Historiann has been hosting a great series of posts that contain lessons for women. I've decided to and add my own lesson: it's okay to say no. I know full well that I am hypocrite as I write this. I am the world's worst person at saying no to anyone -- which will lend this lesson a note of authenticity.

This lesson is seemingly simplistic. The idea of turning someone down for something -- a favor, a date, an engagement, a job, etc. -- when out of context has none of the threat or implications that it does in the actual situation. Also, in my personal experience, when I imagine turning someone down for something, it's never someone that I actually like. Performing favors for my friends, family, and teachers -- people who I admire -- is never something I see as burdensome. This is actually where the problem can arise. You can overstretch yourself.

It's great to do favors for your friends -- to be there for them, support them, and try to make them happy. Performing favors and tasks for your friends can also be a reward in itself. It can make you feel more accomplished and strengthen the bond between you and the other person. But that reward will be missing from the equation if favors are done out of necessity -- a kind of "I have to do it" mentality.

That's not to say that you still don't have your friend's best interest at heart. There's this kind of mentality that if you turn them down for this favor it will in some way damage the strength of the relationship. And this kind of fear can persist through any relationship. The same fear of not being a good friend/lover/student/whatever can come through in any situation: whether you want to turn your friend down for help with a science paper because you have to read 300 pages that night, or whether you hold your tongue while you make your lover's dinner, even though you have a terrible headache and really just want to go sleep.

Girls are often raised to be caretakers. It's that mother/wife/daughter/homemaker role at work again. It reminds me of the beginning of a poem by Maya de Angelou titled "Woman Work":

I’ve got the children to tend
The clothes to mend
The floor to mop
The food to shop
Then the chicken to fry
The baby to dry
I got company to feed
The garden to weed
I’ve got shirts to press
The tots to dress
The cane to be cut
I gotta clean up this hut
Then see about the sick
And the cotton to pick.

Men are raised with responsibility as well, but in my house it's always been the woman who has to "make it work" -- as far as the household running smoothly goes, that is. The man is held responsible for how sucessful his son is, and for religious/moral upbringing, but a woman is judged by how smooth her household runs.

There was unbelieveable pressure on my mother to get the kids to school, take us to sports practice, music lessons, clubs, events, parties, cook dinner, keep the house clean, and still accept invitations from her friends. She often couldn't keep up with the demand, or didn't. My father often berated her for being lazy, and my sister and I would pick up the slack where we could. The more the demand grew, and the more pressure she felt, the more she froze up. My grandmothers juggled the same hectic schedules -- some of them more crowded and chaotic. And I've absorbed some of those lessons.

Now I'm nineteen and in college, and I've always been fairly certain that the only way I can get everything done is if I stop sleeping. What further complicates matters is that I feel guilty if, after I've become worn from going non stop for days, I want some time to myself and have to turn my friends down for dinner or for help on something. Sometimes I simply insist on doing more for them just to alleviate the guilt.

If, finally, I ask for some time to myself or turn down a favor, after I have put it off forever and feel like I will explode, a miraculous thing happens -- nothing. My friends normally comply with my request. They find it completely normal. They weren't even aware, most of the time, that I was feeling overworked, stressed, or like a lot was being demanded of me.

The hard part was not obtaining whatever it was that I needed, or opting out of whatever it was that they wanted -- it was simply getting to the point where I could tell them no. For some reason, that idea that turning people down is wrong is so deeply engrained in me that it feels hard to even get the words out. I feel traitorous.

We have to get to the point where we can tell people no -- no matter what it is that we're declining. It is unhealthy for both the person who wants to decline and the person who is asking for that favor to be in a state where the favor being fulfilled feels oblagatory. Every person on this planet has enough pressure on them without feeling like their are going to be consequences for their not wanting to do whatever task happens to be at hand.

We have been brought up to be caretakers, but that doesn't mean we are solely responsible for making sure that the world runs smoothly and that everyone gets exactly what they want.

So you can't go that art exhibit on Tuesday because you have to study, or you can't help with that paper because your sick. Maybe you can't do whatever it is because you just don't feel like it. You're not slacking off. You're not a terrible friend. They'll understand, the explanation isn't owed, and there will be other times.

And if they don't understand, maybe that's a reflection that the relationship wasn't so strong to begin with, not that you dealt the crushing blow by turning them down.

Passionate Discourse

During my first year in college, I discovered, along with many other discoveries, that I am moved by spoken word.

I've encountered it several times in the past year, and every time I came across an artist that spoke with integrity, passion, love, and rhythm, I was engulfed in a storm of inspiration. Gil Scott Heron and Eve Ensler are the two I have been acquainted with so far.

I'll admit, when I discover that I like something, I often simply explore more work by that particular artist, rather than venturing further out into the genre. These artists often have to come find me for me to fall in love with them.

Aya de Leon found me.

I want more of this woman. I want her passion, I want her discourse, I want her thoughts. I want her like I wanted more of Inga Muscio after I read Cunt, like I wanted more of Suzette Haden Elgin after I read Native Tongue.

I stumbled upon Aya recently while watching a documentary made about her, definition: Aya de Leon. The program was recorded lazily and the timer set with only slight curiosity, to be tucked away in my DVR until I felt just bored enough to hit the play button. I'm glad Free Speech TV did play it, and that I didn't simply delete it to try and appease my father's cries for more recording time (I monopolize much of it with documentaries).

The poem "Cellulite", which I have posted here, particularly struck me. Lately I've been feeling so low anyways, so out of touch with any good feeling about myself. Normally, this manifests in an obsession with several real or imagined malfunctions that I am certain I possess. This time it is a preoccupation with the flaws of my body.

I think Aya might have inspired me to reform my lazy approach in discovering talented spoken word artists. Had I been more inclined to explore the genre, I might have found her out sooner, and perhaps could have praised her in more depth. However, this time, excitement preludes intimate knowledge.

And really, I can't say this is a particularly unpleasant change.

War on Drugs

In the continuing wacky adventures of The Decider before he graciously steps down, MSN has decided to cover Bush's proposal of a bill that would "protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion".

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

This reminds me of a story that ran in USA today last August (coincidentally enough) about a lesbian couple who had been denied access to artificial insemination because the doctor objected on moral grounds. They sued, not because the doctor rejected the mother-to-be, but because he refused refer them to a hospital where the procedure could be carried out. The article also quoted single mothers who had faced a similar challenge.

As a Christian, I can understand that there are a lot of moral conflicts that could meet any person in any work environment, and for that reason, these proposed regulations could have their pros. However, I fear this:

The regulation would apply to anyone who participates in "any activity with a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity."
Critics argue that the broad definitions of abortion and the types of workers who could object would cover everyone from the top doctor at a hospital to the janitor.

And this:

The regulation could trump dozens of state laws that require health plans to cover birth control, pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, and hospitals to offer emergency contraception to women who have been raped, critics said.

"You could imagine a group of people with less than honorable intentions seeking to get hired at a family planning clinic with the specific objective of obstructing access. Under this regulation, there is little you could do about it," said Jill Morrison of the National Women's Law Center.

Most importantly, this:

Others said the rule could have additional implications, including justifying discrimination against gays, single women or others seeking health care.
"As soon as you have a definition in one part of federal law, it can become the inspiration for the reinterpretation of other statutes," said R. Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Because of this:

The most controversial section defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."
That definition would include most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD, which most major medical groups believe do not constitute abortion because they primarily affect ovulation or fertilization and not an embryo once it has implanted in the womb.

Here's where I try to make suggestions, knowing that drafting a bill that doesn't infringe on some person's rights is problematic at best, and that this particular government has been trying for ages to negate the rulings of Roe vs. Wade without thinking about the implications to women's health (see previous post on John McCain's view on current issues).

I'd like to say that if you work in a public institution, you should know that your duty is to serve the people in the best manner possible, and if you cannot provide a service, you should refer that person to someone who can. But I know that some people probably wish to get out of the public heath care system and into a private institution.

All I can say is that restrictions on contraception, abortion, and other things that apply to planned parenting should be limited to private institutions, who can make up their own rules and owe nothing to the public or the government. Governmental institutions should serve the people.

Though military workers may disagree with the war that is currently being fought, it is generally considered their duty to follow orders as long as those orders are lawful. Lawyers are expected to make inquiries into the guilt or innocence of their clients so that no guilty men or women are set free, and no innocents detained, and they are expected to do their best to uphold the law despite personal feelings. Medical workers are expected to uphold their duties, which is to help people solve their health concerns. This does not mean they always have to go against their beliefs, but if they work in a public location they should at least be required to give the people a resource for what they choose to do. The path to contraception should not be closed off for any one party's interest. That doesn't mean that consideration for each party's feelings can't be considered in full.

Tipping the Scales

Update of previous commentary found here.

Fat Princess continues to make headlines -- not because it's a highly anticipated gaming marvel, or because it's graphics kick any particular hindquaters, but because of protest on the blogosphere -- particular Shakesville's Melissa McEwan's protests.

MSNBC's Kristin Kalning wrote a darling little column on the scandal -- one that drips with sincerity, fair play, and decent writing abilities.

Snarky reporters - 1; Journalism - 0.

The "Mary-Go-Round"

Here's something interesting. Apparently a feminist gamer group is protesting a new game released by Sony: Fat Princess. Yahoo! News debates reveals the inner conflict.

Debuting at last week's E3 expo, the colorful Fat Princess is a capture-the-flag game with a twist: you can thwart capture attempts by locking the once-thin princess in a dungeon and stuffing her full of cake, thereby increasing her girth and making her harder for your enemies to haul back to home base.

Feminist Gamer's "Mighty Ponygirl" rings in diplomatically, suggesting a new way to play the game altogether.

"Instead of running out into the forest to find cake to fatten up the princess with, why not go out and find gold (which is a lot heavier than cake) to stuff into a treasure chest. The more gold in the chest, the heavier it would be, and the harder it would be to carry," she said, before adding, "Oh, but that's not as "cute" as cake and fat chicks. Right."

Over at Shakesville, however, writer Melissa McEwan cuts to the chase, telling Sony she's "positively thrilled to see such unyielding dedication to creating a new generation of fat-hating, heteronormative ---holes."

I tend to agree with my gaming sisters (what else is new?), but for other reasons. The game tends to be offensive because it proposes that a woman is a flag, which brings to mind the point in history where women were legally possessions. If Sony finds it hard to understand why the game offends feminists, I challenge them to replace the rotund female with a burly black man carrying gardening tools.

However, in defense of Sony, they are merely following the formula for best selling games. There are other games that are wildly popular and make it their business to be as offensive as possible. "Grand Theft Auto", for example. It is impossibly for any video game to be polite and agreeable to society. Video games are offensive simply by being video games. "Mario" is offensive to some people because they see the numerous mushrooms as referring to a drug subculture, and believe that those games are influencing their children to buy drugs. Some people might find Sonic offensive because Sonic's main goal is to gather coins as quickly as possible, thereby pushing forth the sin of greed.

It's not how the game is offensive, it's in what way the game attempts to be offensive. Sony's "Fat Princess" is a disgrace to the very idea of video-games, not because of it's slightly off-color message, but because of lack of originality. If you're going to be offensive, do it properly.

For instance, what if the object of the game was not to drive the princess into obesity, but to cure the princess of anorexia and rescue her from enemies that are rapists and obsessed with Twiggy? As most of us know, the purpose of capturing any princess is to disgrace her kingdom and to take advantage of her. And most of us also know that the market Sony is pushing the game towards finds people who are overweight unattractive. So, in making Fat Princess obese, her rescuers could lose interest in her, and attempt shove her off on their enemies. So the enemies wouldn't want her either, and her rescuers would have to make her skinnier to make her desirable again. All of this "off-and-on" attention would give the princess a complex and cause her to regain her eating disorder. Also the amount of sugar she took in would make her diabetic, and you would have to try and get your enemies to take the fat princess back before her extremities fell off. In the bonus level you could have an endless supply of insulin to keep her healthy.

Now you've made a game worth being offended over.

She's a Witch! Burn Her!

As time grows closer and closer for me to go to college, my concerns increase over whether or not I will be able to find a church that fits my needs. After all, I am in the perfect church for me right now. But Athens will be a different theological ballpark, and I wish to choose wisely.
So while leafing through an informational brochure I was given during orientation about the campus churches provided, I noticed one dedicated to Baha'ism. I had no idea what that was, so I looked it up. And while I still have more reading to do on the theological principal of Baha'ism, I was distracted by a radical "doom-and-gloom" Christian site preaching the different theological evils that threaten to rip our souls from our spinal chords. And while I was reading about how Baha'is were demonic forces, I happened to notice a link to another social heresy.
Can you guess what it was?

Feminism

On the Jeremiah Project's site, you can find out how every feminist leader has set forth an agenda to change the traditional Christian church to a New Age fellowship that worships the ancient goddess, how feminism is rooted in Satanism rather than the equality of the sexes, and how Christian women who advocate understanding and political/social equality really came from abusive homes, are equipped with weak wills/minds, and how women in the workforce are destroying American values and will eventually kill the country.
Yes. I'm a witch.
And with my Satan worshipping and magic brews, I will bring about the will of the goddess to smite the ignorance of this pseudo-Christian, who spreads hate and intolerance, rather than truth and Christ's love.
I'm sure that some of the people he has quoted, and some of the incidents he cites, have some sort of merit. I'm sure that in the Feminist movement there are radicals that wish for every woman to worship a goddess, or believe that patriarchal churches are indeed destroying women.
I also realize that, ironically, my anger over his intolerance is against the Christian doctrine. Which tells readers two things about me:
1) I am not perfect and need to continue my relationship with God.
2) I hate stupidity, which leads to number 1.

More than likely, I will be back later with more on the Jeremiah Project, right after I finish reading The Feminist Infiltration of the Church. Should be entertaining.

Baby Killers and the Guilt Complex

That dirty F-word: Feminism

The above denotes a column I found in passing recently. It belongs to the West Georgian, a newspaper belonging to the University of West Georgia, and I am highly impressed with the intelligence and quality of this column. The author is well-versed in the subject, and has been able to intelligently defend her stance in spite of some negative feedback in the comments. So, in homage to the article, I've decided to express my views on the matter. Anyone who would like to point out places where my thoughts may be unsound, or I lack some sort of education on the matter, please feel free to comment. I'll respond in a timely manner.

Abortion: it's probably one of the touchiest issues in American culture right now. I won't speak for the rest of the world. It's definitely up there with homosexuality, the death penalty, immigration, the war in Iraq, terrorism, and racism. There is a lot of room for intolerance as far as debate goes.

As for me, I'm Pro-Life. Not just because I'm Christian, and therefore "have to be", but because I know that I personally could never go through with an abortion without feeling guilty for the rest of my life. I would be plagued with imagining what the child would have been like, and what it could have done for the world. Even if I didn't want a child, I would know that there are many families that want children very badly but cannot conceive, and my baby could have brought them happiness. That, too, would drive me deeper into guilt.

I believe that life begins at conception, because science tells us that cells are alive. That cell becomes what we are - human beings, living, breathing, thinking. Only God knows when the soul is implanted, and when thoughts begin.
But my beliefs effect only my decisions. I can share my beliefs with people, but I should not be given the power to prevent them from making their own decision. If abortion was made illegal, then people would still have abortions. People will always have abortions. They would just have the abortions in unsafe ways. Then these women would die, along with their unborn babies, and we would lose two lives, instead of one. There are radical pro-life groups out there that take protesting to the extreme, and make the women who have abortions out to be complete monsters. Sex hungry whores. Baby killers.

I had a friend once who was opposed to using contraception because she didn't like the feel of condoms while having sex. She was impregnated several times, and each time, though I begged her to go to an abortion clinic if she insisted on getting rid of the baby, she preformed the abortion herself by pressing hard on her stomach. This is dangerous -- if it didn't work, it could have injured the baby severely, made her sterile, or made delivery very difficult. In doing this (several times) she could have injured herself to the point where she would be unable to have children in the future, if she chose to.

The reason that she chose not to go to a clinic was that she was afraid that she would be harrassed by others, kicked out of my high school (which does not allow any girl to attend who is or has ever been pregnant), and shunned by her family. She didn't want to have children, and she couldn't consider carrying the baby for adoption purposes because that would alert others to her pregnancy. So she took matters into her own hands.

The point of the above story: people shouldn't be made to feel guilty about the choices that they make by people who don't understand their situation. Trust me: no matter what, you have no right to judge. If you don't believe, read the Bible. God agrees with me.

If you really don't like the fact that someone you know is getting an abortion, you can talk to them and try to understand why they want to get an abortion and whether it is possible to change their mind. But in the end, it's their choice, not yours, and taking away that choice would be a violation of freewill. It's constitutionally protected. Look it up.

And if you really want to decrease the number of abortions, then swallow the fact that people are going to have sex. As this is the case, education on sex, and tools that can help prevent pregnancy and STDs would really be the best way to go. There is no double standard for sex, and a woman is not going to turn into a whore if she decides to have sex.

True, abstinence is the only course that guarentees being pregnancy and STD free, but that is a post for another time.