Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The cover letter I would love to send... but won't

*This letter was spurred by a depressing day of job-hunting.  I became angry and depressed at my lack of options and my increasing feelings of hopelessness and I needed to let out everything that had been building up inside of me, even if it was just by writing a letter than no one would read. Thus, this began as a hypothetical angry letter to all the employers who I felt never gave me a fair chance... then it turned into a more general rant about the sick and twisted dynamic that exists between companies and employees/potential employees.  Maybe someone will stumble on this and derive some catharsis from these words I have written. Or maybe it will linger unwritten.  In any case...

Dear No Longer Potential Employer;

I am writing this letter to you today to thank you for the “chance” to work for you.  I sincerely hope that you found the perfect candidate for your position since you have so readily chosen to dismiss a qualified and competent candidate such as myself.

I have so much to offer, so much I want to give in terms of my time, skills, intelligence, and dedication, yet you, like so many others, have (seemingly arbitrarily) chosen to dismiss me, to write off my potential, and I am left a person (yeah, we peons are actually people) with no place in this world, with much to give, but with apparently nothing anyone wants.  You continually choose people who are under-qualified, unskilled, unknowledgeable, and flat-out incompetent.  I know this, because I’ve seen it in so many of the people that you and others of your ilk choose to employ.  It seems that no matter what I do- no matter how many times I overhaul my resume or rewrite my cover letter- you always choose vapid, mediocre candidates whose qualifications are akin to mere window-dressing on an otherwise vacant house. 

I am not denying that your position gives you the “right” to make whatever decisions you choose in terms of who you employ, but I cannot help expressing my anger and frustration at your omnipotence and the power it gives you to brand me as worthless, as someone to be relegated to the dust bin of society.  Do you realize that I will soon be without a place to live?  Do you realize that I can’t afford to eat or maintain my health as I ought to?  No you don’t, because clearly if you did you wouldn’t look down your nose at me if my interview clothes are a little worn or my lack of a salon-perfect hairstyle and expensive handbag.  When a person can’t afford to buy a gallon of milk, do you honestly expect that they’ll be able to maintain your ideal image for a job that they don’t even know you’ll give them?  Do you?  Food for thought as you sit in your Lexus during rush hour tonight.

You can write me off as a disgruntled “kid” (I’m 26!) who likes to whine about all the injustice in this world while still being relatively privileged, and I won’t dispute that I am luckier than a great many people, but I write this letter not only on my behalf, but on the behalf of others whom you have marginalized and kicked aside for petty and often arbitrary reasons.  I write this letter for those who have families to support, for those who are dangerously close to living on the street, for those who are not just going without food, but are starving.  I write this letter for those who are sick and can’t even afford to go to a doctor.  I write this letter on behalf of all those who have struggled to live.  I write this letter for all those who must take soul-crushing, spirit-stealing, time-wasting, abusive, low-wage jobs in order to eke out some semblance of an existence only so that they can come back the next day and churn out profits to feed your selfish extravagances. 

You complain about the “welfare queens”, the people on government assistance, the unemployed.  Those whom you see (despite reality being much different) as sucking our economy dry, as lazy good-for-nothing human beings who do nothing but lie around in front of the TV eating Cheetos for 15 hours a day and expect the rest of society to take care of them.  You say poverty is one’s own fault, for not working hard enough, for not being smart enough.  You say people make their own problems and should take responsibility.  You think that this absolves you of any responsibility. Well I’m here to tell you that the only way that people can take care of themselves is if they have the means to do it.  In this society that means securing gainful, steady employment for a wage that a person and their family can realistically live on, and yet you so callously turn up your nose at these people, hold the golden carrot every farther away, and then turn around and complain. 

I have news for you: you may think you are in power, and indeed right now you are, but when you marginalize, abuse, and dismiss an ever-increasing group of people, you are putting yourself in a dangerous position.  It has been proven throughout history, that the less people have to lose, the more likely it is that they will rise up and fight.  You can kick aside me and everyone else, but you are creating a group of desperate, angry, hopeless, marginalized human beings, that when left with no options and nowhere to turn, will not be afraid to band together and take action against those who have put them in that position.  We will make our problems your problems and we will resort to forcefully pulling your head out of the sand if we must.  It is only a matter of time.  Are you prepared to face the repercussions?  We are like caged animals and you are poking us with sharp sticks- it is only a matter of time before even the most complacent among us will lash out with a fiery viciousness.  I know. I used to be one of the complacent.  And I was the sweet, even-tempered animal who kept getting kicked around.  Now spurred by my anger and the seemingly hopeless nature of my situation, I will lash out with vitriol and rage.  How dare you deny me?!  How dare you say I have nothing to give?  How dare you make me feel a worthless human being?  I am not!  Nobody is, and I am using the little I have left to make that abundantly clear.     

In conclusion, fuck you and fuck your company.  

But please do not hesitate to contact me regarding future job opportunities. 

Sincerely,
AnonaGirl

Friday, August 26, 2011

Harlem by Langston Hughes


What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore-
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over-
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

A diatribe on protest and social change

I’ve stopped believing people are stupid.  I’ve stopped believing that the average person wants to grope blindly and helplessly through life.  I’ve stopped believing that people truly want pacification by all the inane trappings our society offers.  Ignorance is different than stupidity.  Ignorance is simply a lack of information, a lack of knowledge of alternatives.  Ignorance is a lack of believing that one person or group of people can affect any sort of positive change or even knowing where to start or what to do.  Ignorance is not the shortcoming of one individual or group.  Ignorance is systematic.  Ignorance is inborn and ingrained in all of us. 

I think it is misguided at best for the activist to approach the systematic ignorance ingrained in society with the attitude of “these people don’t know any better- we have to educate them to see the world through our (the correct) lens”.  That is a rather presumptuous attitude and one which I believe turns many off from noble causes and from actually mobilizing to affect change. 

You can feed people documented facts and truths all you want, but to truly be driven to try to create change, people have to first feel a personal and direct impact.  You can disseminate information about the plight of the American worker and the scourge of corporatism and the growing divide between filthy rich and dirt poor (among many other social ills), until your face turns blue and you wear through the soles of your shoes, but it will not make one damn bit of difference to a person who has not felt the ever tightening screws of the vise on our very humanity. 

That is why I believe that there will be no mass uproar, no protest, until enough people have suffered themselves the injustices of our current broken society.  Even those now who are struggling, who are feeling themselves pinched through every aspect of their lives, but are still eking out survival are unlikely to be motivated toward involvement.  Take the plight of the typical Wal-Mart employee, for example: after working long hours with no benefits and a paycheck that could not support one person, much less an entire family, do you really think that after they’ve been on their feet 40, 50, 60 hours a week, they’ll have the time, energy, or inclination to any great social action?  Do you really think that they can just hop in their car and drive several hours to hold a stupid sign?  Do you really think that they want to?  Do you really think that they can afford the gas, food, and related expenses just to go stand in a disgruntled crowd for a few hours?  Do you really think that after working 40, 50, 60 hours a week they’re going to be so willing to sacrifice what little personal time they have for themselves and their families to go to a protest? Hell, I wouldn’t!

As much as I hate to say it, most people will only be driven to act through anger and desperation.  Say this “typical” Wal-Mart employee loses their job or loses their government benefits (on which many Wal-Mart employees are encouraged by the company itself to rely); this person now faces the real possibility that their family, although struggling before, may now be completely deprived of food, shelter, and good health.  Say 100, 500, 1,000, 50,000 workers face this very real possibility- confronted with such a state of desperation- these people, who now have little left but their anger and helplessness, will be the ones to rattle the bars on the cage.  

You can sit on your folding chair in your climate controlled room and complain about the ills of society.  And you can talk about the poor ignorant people in Anytown, IN, who need to be “educated” into your way of seeing the world.  And you can go to your protests and wave your signs about the injustices halfway across the country or around the globe, but these people, these people to whom little is given and more and more is stolen, these people whom you feel you must “educate” these are the people who will do the true fighting.  Not you, the 20-something urban idealist.  Not you.

The war needs to be waged in our small towns and communities.  Focus needs to be put on organizing, on not trying to “win” people over to a particular ethos or “educate” people into your way of thinking.  Focus needs to be put on meeting people where they are, of encouraging people to stand up for themselves and for each other and see the impact on themselves and others of the injustices that are continually wrought upon them; in small cities and communities I believe there is a great potential for this.  The somewhat insular attitude of many small towns is a blessing in this case- because instead of a mass of nameless faces, the somewhat cliquish attitude of many small towns (despite all its obvious ugliness), can be easily channeled to yield personal connections, yield a knowledge of the problems of your friends and neighbors, and can begin to create a close-knit fabric of interdependence and community solidarity.  That is how I believe the war will be waged if we have any hope of truly winning. 

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

UN Report: "Progress of the World's Women"

From UN Women (United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women)*, the North American factsheet from the recently released report "Progress of the World's Women":

http://progress.unwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EN-Factsheet-North-America-Progress-of-the-Worlds-Women.pdf

There are some interesting facts here about the still present wage gap, maternity leave, rape and violence, female incarceration, etc.  Did you know that black women in the U.S. earn an average of 38% less than white males?  And Latina women earn an average of 48% less than white males.  Also, the report finds that U.S. jurors are more likely to question the credibility of black and Latina women in rape cases and the report brings to light the high instances of rape among Native American women.  


*http://www.unwomen.org/

Complete report: http://progress.unwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EN-Summary-Progress-of-the-Worlds-Women1.pdf



Thursday, July 7, 2011

Just when you thought we had moved beyond the 1950s

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/06/harrods_retail_dress_code_makeup/index.html
I thought that was bad.

Then I read this and I was filled with even more righteous feminist ire:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2011282/Melanie-Stark-Harrods-row-If-refuse-lippy-firm-job.html#ixzz1RLpbZ9ch

Are you fucking kidding me?! 
Are you FUCKING kidding me?! 
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!! 

Dear Liz Jones, who the hell do you think you are?!

From her article (particularly abhorent parts in boldface):

Third, a sloppy dress code leads to a sloppy attitude. An unmade-up face tells me you find it hard to get up early enough to attend to your maquillage.
This is not sexist: I don't want to buy anything from a man who hasn't bothered to shave either. It's simply to do with attitude.
Women who feel no compunction to improve what nature bestowed upon them are, in my experience, arrogant, lazy or deluded, and frequently all three.
This is especially true in the service industry, where a bare face is no more acceptable than a dentist with halitosis. It tells me that a woman doesn't really care what others think of her.
Wearing even a little make-up shows respect to others, demonstrating on the outside that you are professional, a stickler for detail, someone who doesn't cut corners.But there is one aspect of Ms Stark's case that I do find puzzling: why does any intelligent women (whatever her workplace) need a manual to tell them what is or isn't acceptable. Surely common sense should do?

Also, if Ms. Jones really wanted to prove her point, she shouldn't have accompanied the article with two photos of a bare-faced Ms. Stark, who is quite a beautiful woman just as she is.  This does not back up Ms. Jones' case.

Liz Jones, you are a retarded Uncle Tom.
Of course, it is the Daily Mail, so what did I really expect?

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

The corporate pill mill and my experience with antidepressant meds.

http://www.alternet.org/health/151513/big_pharma%27s_latest_shady_ploy_to_sell_depression_drugs_that_people_may_not_need_/?page=entire

To imply that depression is not a real and serious mental health issue for some of us is a mistake.  To imply that antidepressant medication doesn't work or only works through "the placebo effect" or is a "quick fix" for a bad mood comes off as ignorant and insulting to those of us who have had to fight for years with this wretched disorder and HAVE been helped by medication. 

That being said, are prescription drugs (particularly drugs related to the treatment of disorders such as depression and ADHD) overprescribed?  I would say yes.  Are there people who have been described antidepressants who perhaps don't need them?  Sure there are.  Are there harmful and dangerous drugs on the market that are being prescribed to people who are ignorant of the side effects and repercussions of such medication?  I'll be the first one to agree with that.

But some drugs do work.  And some people need medication.  Major depressive disorder is caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain such as serotonin and norepinephrine and the way the brain processes these chemicals.  Sometimes antidepressants can help balance things out, enabling the person to be able to live some semblance of a normal life.

There are good drugs and bad drugs.  Drug companies are out to make a profit and for the most part they don't really care what happens in the long term.  They peddle new medications (which are often just reformulations of existing medications) to physicians promising incentives if they'll prescribe them.

Take for example the fraternal twins of antidepressants Pristiq and Effexor, drugs of which I've had personal experience.  Effexor (venlafaxine) was formulated by Wyeth (part of Pfizer) as an SNRI (serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor).  It is available in doses from 25mg up to 150mg.

About the time the patent on Effexor was due to expire (thus allowing generic versions to enter the market), Wyeth formulated a new drug they called Pristiq or desvenlafaxine.  Essentially Pristiq is a reformulation of Effexor or venlafaxine, the main difference being the way the body metabolizes the drug.  Pristiq is essentially the active metabolite of Effexor and basically Effexor is metabolized by the body into desvenlafaxine anyway after it's taken, so all Pristiq does is just eliminate a step in that process.   Pristiq is available in 50mg and 100mg tablets.  There is no equivalency in dosage between Effexor and Pristiq, meaning that 50mg of Pristiq does not equal 50mg of Effexor.

So why two drugs that basically do the same thing?  Because Wyeth/Pfizer wanted to recoup the money they would lose when their overpriced antidepressant went generic.  It's that simple. 

It was around the time that Pristiq entered the market that I visited a psychiatrist to re-evaluate my depression treatment.  I had been taking Effexor for awhile but felt that it wasn't really helping enough and I was also concerned about the heinous withdrawal side effects*.  My psychiatrist's answer was to transition me over to Pristiq- this brand new drug that would be better for me than Effexor because my body would metabolize it differently.  Now, I'm in my early twenties at this time and know nothing about pharmacology.  I grew up believing that doctor had your best interests at heart and that when it came to medication you could trust their judgment so I figured that if this was what she was recommending, it was the way to go.

So, leaving the office with about 5 sample packs (I didn't have insurance) of this promising new drug, I switched over to Pristiq after having taken 150mg of Effexor daily for I don't even remember how long.  Given that there's no dosage equivalency between the two medications (very clever, Wyeth), the changeover was rocky and I experienced some symptoms of withdrawal which I slugged through.  Now I did think the Pristiq helped at the time, but knowing what I know now (given that Pristiq is essentially the same drug as Effexor), it may have been coincidence or it may have been the proverbial "placebo effect".  However, I still had symptoms, so a few months later I was prescribed Wellbutrin (buproprion) in addition to the Pristiq.  That actually did help- after a couple of weeks of physical and mental hell adjusting to the drug. 

I tell you all this, because I look back and think that I was essentially sold a bill of goods.  Not that I think my doctor did it malevolently, but did she have some kind of incentive to change my medication to this brand new drug?  Probably.  And hey, it was practically the same med anyway, so victimless crime, right? 
I wish I had known better.

It's probably been about two or three years since the Great AD Switchover and I'm still on 100mg of Pristiq a day.  However, as of about 2 weeks ago, spurred partially by the fact that I was losing my Rx coverage and partially by the fact that the more I thought about this drug I was taking (side effects, discontinuation, etc), the more I began to distrust that Pristiq was effective or safe.  After all, I had improved far more with Wellbutrin than I ever did with the venlafaxine twins.

So... I decided to wean myself off of Pristiq.  I am doing this slowly and without my psychiatrist's supervision or knowledge.  I don't really want to try to justify myself to the people who hocked Pristiq at me in the first place and I don't really want to be on any other pills.  My method of weaning simply consists of cutting my pills.  Every night when I take my pill, I cut a little sliver off with a knife, over time I'll cut off progressively larger and larger slivers until I'm able to function without the medication altogether.  Now, a lot of the information I've read discourages cutting your pills since they're supposedly covered with a time release coating, but I've been doing this for a little over a week thus far and I'm down to 2/3 of a 100mg Pristiq nightly with no noticeable side effects.  So far so good, and every night when I cut my pill I get excited thinking about the day when I won't be dependent on this god-awful drug anymore. 

I'm not really worried about what I'm doing because I figure if the withdrawal gets to be too much or I stop the meds and realize I mentally felt better with them, I can always begin taking them again, considering that the doctor will keep prescribing them as long as I pretend to be taking them.  I'm prepared for some discomfort and don't expect not to feel any withdrawal, but cannabis has always proven effective in quelling the side effects such as nausea, headache, severe mood swings, etc.  I plan to stay on the Wellbutrin at least for awhile, since I'm pretty happy with what it does and don't have the worries about side effects and discontinuation that I do with desvenlafaxine.  

Moral of the story?  Don't ever take a medication without researching it first. Even if you trust your physician. Or maybe the real moral of the story is that you can't always trust medical professionals to have your best interests at heart, even if you are paying them to do so.

Drug dependence comes in many forms.  The drug companies have realized they can profit off this.  Internetland is filled with accounts of other people who are facing the same struggles with des/venlafaxine as me.  I don't believe that drug companies and physicians aren't aware of the hellish side effects of this drug, but as long as there is money to be made they can't be trusted to give a shit.

*Heinous withdrawal side effects for me specifically have been nausea, headache, dizzyness, weakness, tremor, dry mouth, extreme lethargy and sleepiness, intestinal upset (to put it nicely), INTENSE mood swings, and this lovely little thing we venlafaxine dependents call "brain shivers". These effects usually begin at approx the 5 hour mark, intensify quickly, and they usually occur simultaneously, although the brain shivers alone are enough to send me running back to that little orangey-brown tablet.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Another rant by this pissed-off feminist

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/151504/900_anti-woman_laws_to_appease_conservative_extremists_--_is_abortion_becoming_legal_in_name_only/

How about instead of narrowly enforcing dogmatic and patriarchal views on women, anti-choice supporters worked toward creating a world in which women are less likely to NEED to have abortions? 
Ways to do this include:

Ensuring comprehensive sex education for middle and high school students.

Easy and anonymous access to safe, effective, and affordable contraception.
-Availability of free contraception (condoms, sponges, Plan B) in school clinics, discreetly and with no questions asked
-Increased availability of The Pill and other contraceptive methods: lower cost, availability without prescription

More safe and effective contraception options.

-Formulation of contraception for men.  C'mon... if scientists can formulate not just one, but several different pills to give a man an erection, surely someone, somewhere could figure out male fertility. Of course, I could speculate on why this hasn't happened, but that's a topic for another day.

-Development of more contraceptive options for women. Sure, women have more contraceptive options today than thirty or forty years ago, but really a lot of these are just variations on the same method; essentially it's either hormones, a barrier method, or nothing, and for some women, none of these options are particularly viable nor desirable.  Let me elaborate:
   -The Pill, Patch, NuvaRing, Plan B etc, alters a woman's natural hormone levels and often reduces her
    desire for sex, defeating the purpose of birth control in the first place.  Also, some women don't   
    particularly care for the idea of screwing with their hormones. 
   -Condoms can break and some people are allergic to spermicide and latex.  Additionally condoms
    decrease sensation and enjoyment of sex.  Put on a latex glove and note how much you can feel through
     it.  (Needless to say, condoms are your first and only line of defense against STIs and HIV.)
   -Diaphragms, sponges: again, spermicide allergies.
   -IUDs: risks of uterine puncture, dislodgment of device, breakthrough bleeding and increased pain and 
    bleeding with menstruation.  Medical procedure.
   -DepoProvera
   -Tubal ligation (female sterilization): permanent, doctors usually won't perform procedure on younger
     women
   -Vasectomy: many men unwilling to get procedure, costly
   -Natural family planning: fertility awareness method, rhythm method, "pulling out":  not always reliable,
     requires intense monitoring of body temperature, cycles, must abstain from sex during ovulation (when 
     most women probably want sex the most), man forgets or "forgets" or doesn't pull out in time.
   -Abstinence: this doesn't count!  Human beings want to have sex. It's a part of life. It's part of being a
    developed, functional adult.  You can't expect people to just not have sex. It's natural, it's part of our
    biological instinct as a human mammal.  You can tell teens not to have sex until you're blue in the face,
    but guess what?  Teenagers are still going to have sex if they want.  Hasn't this been proven time and time
    again?  Abstinence only education and denying birth control options to teenagers isn't going to stop 
    anyone, but what it WILL do is increase the instance of sexually transmitted infections if teens don't have
    the tools and education to protect themselves and take charge of their own health.  Really, widespread
    application of abstinence-only sex education is a PUBLIC HEALTH THREAT.

No woman WANTS to have an abortion.  Abortion is a painful, uncomfortable, and costly procedure.  Ask any woman if she wants a vacuum stuck up her vagina.  Ask any woman if she wants the severe cramps, pain, and heavy bleeding that come with taking mifepristone (the "abortion pill").  No woman willingly puts herself through that.  No woman wants to be in the position of having to choose whether or not to have an abortion. 

Even if abortion were entirely outlawed tomorrow, women would still have abortions. They would just have them clandestinely and under unsterile unsafe circumstances where the risk of infections, complications, and death are high.  Outlawing abortion aint gonna stop a damn thing.  You think women never tried to end an unwanted pregnancy before Roe v. Wade came along?  Banning abortion will just equal more women dying from unsafe "back-alley" abortions.  Anti-abortion advocates think they're saving lives when really they're doing the exact opposite... or is it really that the woman's life just isn't important enough? 

And speaking of, it is absolutely DISGUSTING that there are some people who value what they term "potential life" over an actual mature living, breathing, existing human being.  Whether they realize it or not, by giving precedence to "potential life" over an actual walking, talking, thinking, feeling, learning, loving human being, the anti-choice set is essentially telling women that their only value is as a walking womb.

And clearly they seem to think women are too stupid to know what's best for them, so they need strangers to tell them.  No, it's not okay to have an abortion if you can't afford to provide for a baby, if you can't afford prenatal care, if you have no one to support you during your pregnancy or after.  No, it's not okay to have an abortion to save your own life or health or sanity- that's just not important.  No, it's not okay to have an abortion if you were raped- clearly that's your fault so you should live with the consequences.

This is not okay.  Let me say it again. THIS IS NOT OKAY.  Anti-choice supporters say they want to create a culture that celebrates life- but I guess not the lives of women, since it seems to be okay for women to be in pain, to die, to live with the consequences of choices they weren't allowed to make all for the cause of "potential life".
And where does it end?  If anti-choice advocates have their way and abortion is outlawed to preserve "potential life", will their next crusade be to outlaw birth control since that prevents "potential life"?  With that logic I guess women should be pregnant as much as possible, since shedding an egg every month through menstruation is also preventing "potential life".  And I'm not even sure that most anti-choicers would be okay with that.
The anti-choice movement says that it cares about the lives of women.  Well, if anti-choicers REALLY care about the lives of women, maybe they should stop trying to legislate private, personal, life choices and put their energy to use in a way that really would save the lives of women.  Rape, female genital mutilation, sex slavery are all rampant in our world.  Imagine if anti-choice activists devoted even half the energy to stopping these attrocities as they do to telling women how to live their lives... what an impact THAT would have.

Cool



BANGKOK | Sun Jul 3, 2011 10:54am EDT
BANGKOK (Reuters) - After six prime ministers in six years of sometimes bloody political upheaval, Thais might be excused for shrugging their shoulders about voting in number seven.But this time there's one big difference. The new prime minister will be a woman, the first to hold the position in Thailand.
Yingluck Shinawatra, a 44-year-old businesswoman who wasn't even in politics two months ago, is poised to get the top job after the stunning election victory of Puea Thai (For Thais), whose de facto leader is her brother, fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.
Yingluck, known as Pou (Crab), the nickname her parents gave her, has never run for office or held a government post, so she has a lot to prove to show she can run the country.
But some Thais, especially females, want to give her the benefit of the doubt and see this as a big step for women in a country where they have struggled for equal representation in government.
"I've always wanted to have the first lady prime minister," said Areerak Saelim, 42-year-old owner of a sunglass shop in a Bangkok market.
"I've seen too many men failing to run the country. Maybe this time, things will be different. What women are -- and men aren't -- is meticulous. I'm pretty sure she can do the job based on her age and successful career."
Yingluck has promised to revive her brother's populist policies and raise living standards among the poor, vowing to pursue national reconciliation to end a six-year political crisis, without seeking vengeance for her brother's overthrow by the military in 2006.
"More and more women are capable, knowledgeable and can actually get the job done these days," said Yaowalak Poolthong, first executive vice-president of Krung Thai Bank Pcl.
"I don't think gender should be an issue, limiting who can or can't do the job."
MAN BEHIND THE WOMAN
But some wondered whether she was her own woman.
"It's obvious who she represents," said Puttasa Karnsakulton, a 37-year-old clothing shop owner.
Thaksin, a twice-elected prime minister who is now living as a fugitive from Thai justice in Dubai, has said he wants to come home, and one of Yingluck's policies is an amnesty for political offences.
"I can't accept it if having the first female prime minister means she'll come in to benefit one person. There are doubts in my mind that this is simply a woman in front of a man," Puttasa said.
Puea Thai's plan to give each province 100 million baht ($3.2 million) to support the income-generating activities of women's groups has left some women's rights advocates skeptical.
"Who is to decide who will get the money? Will this be just a one-off handout? Will it work as a revolving fund?" asked Sutada Mekrungruengkul, director of the Gender and Development Research Institute.
Siriphan Noksuan, associate professor at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Political Science, said it was far too early to say what kind of leader she would be.
"People know she's a political novice," Siriphan said.
"But they also trust that she will have an army of pundits and economic advisers behind the scene to help her."
For now, she can bask in her victory after a campaign that left defeated Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, a career politician, struggling from day one.
Abhisit doesn't have the common touch. Yingluck, a wealthy businesswoman, and Thaksin, a billionaire former telecoms tycoon, do.
"In some way, I feel like I can connect with her and her brother even though we're poor and have nothing," said Malai Jiemdee, a maid from Nakhon Ratchasima province. ($1 = 30.795 Baht)
(Additional reporting by Manunphattr Dhanananphorn; Editing by Alan Raybould)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/03/us-thailand-election-women-idUSTRE7621CW20110703

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Worms in the Apple and a tirade about the mentality of the American "work ethic"


From AlterNet.org:
Mac Stores Tell Workers, Instead of Giving You Health Care, Working for Apple 'Should Be Looked at As An Experience'By Josh Eidelson, In These Times
Posted on June 28, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/151465/mac_stores_tell_workers%2C_instead_of_giving_you_health_care%2C_working_for_apple_%27should_be_looked_at_as_an_experience%27

On the day Apple celebrated 10 years since opening its first Apple Store, employee Cory Moll announced a campaign to unionize the company’s 30,000-plus retail employees. Moll sent an e-mail to reporters declaring that “the people of Apple are coming together to "‘work different.’” "The core issues definitely involve compensation, pay, benefits," Moll said.

A Reuters reporter echoed the response of many journalists in calling the union drive “unusual given Apple’s reputation for fierce employee loyalty.” But interviews with workers in three states help explain how and why some of Apple’s employees want to change the company. (All three employees interviewed for this article requested and were provided anonymity based on their fear of retaliation.)

A Bay Area employee described what happened last year when he and about a dozen co-workers realized employees with years of service were being paid less than new hires doing the same work. Agitated about the situation but concerned about retaliation, the workers committed to a plan: during the approaching round of annual one-on-one meetings between workers and managers, they would each ask about pay disparities.

Those workers who did ask received a consistent response: “Money shouldn’t be an issue when you’re employed at Apple.” Instead, managers said, the chance to work at Apple “should be looked at as an experience.” “You can’t live off of experience,” said the worker interviewed. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Apple has outpaced Tiffany & Co. jewelers in retail sales per square foot.

Employees said that Apple keeps its healthcare costs down by defining even employees working 40 hours a week as part-time if they can’t guarantee open availability (availability to be scheduled to work anytime the store is open). The three workers interviewed said that most employees at each of their stores either work second jobs or go to school, making open availability impossible.

These workers are instead offered Apple’s “part-time” health insurance plan, which costs them much more and the company much less. The Bay Area worker, who works 32 to 40 hours a week, is currently going without medication for a serious health condition because he can’t afford the $120 to $150 a month for the “part time” plan. “$120 a month is what I live on after rent and bills,” he said. All three employees said that the majority of their co-workers were classified as part time.

A Maryland worker said that Apple’s understaffing can make the workload “overwhelming” during high traffic periods and leaves him “singled out” by frustrated customers. He said it “adds tension and makes it a lot more difficult to be effective” as both employees and customers become increasingly stressed.

A New York State worker said that “our demand has outgrown our staffing tremendously,” and that he is yelled at by customers at least once a week. He said the contrast between the lengths Apple goes to satisfy customers and its inflexibility in the face of employees’ needs is “demoralizing.”

The same worker said he has ideas for how to make his store run more effectively, but has no avenue to get them taken seriously given Apple’s “very top-down corporate culture.” In the past year, management made “a very big overhaul” of workers’ schedules and responsibilities at his store. For his co-workers, it meant “less time doing the things they like to do both at work and outside of work”: less time for repairs and more time on the floor; less consistent schedules and more times working a night shift followed by a morning shift hours later.

The change “wreaked havoc” on his personal life and “strained” his relationship with his girlfriend. He calls the new system “a drain emotionally and physically” and resents that he had no voice in it. Though he’s undecided about unionization, he said if it happened, “the biggest benefit” would be “just having a say in these situations.”

All three workers interviewed saw organizing the stores as a daunting task. The Bay Area worker said he is eager to get involved but most of his co-workers fear punishment for “even talking about a union.” He said that Apple goes out of its way to make employees feel “extremely expendable.” “For a company that has been founded on the ideas of ‘think different’ and innovation,” he said, “their labor practices are anything but.”

The Maryland employee said that although he wants a union, his first reaction on hearing about Moll’s e-mail was, “That guy is going to get fired.” He said after he was hired, a trainer told him “casually” that Apple was against union organizing and that working nonunion was part of the job. The comment was “thrown in there with the sexual harassment training.”

Moll told industry website Inside Apple Store that he has begun working with a “prominent national union” to organize his own store and that he has received e-mails from workers at 100 other stores interested in union representation.

Apple, which has more than 30,000 employees in 325 stores around the world, did not respond to a request for comment.

Read more of Working In These Times.




Josh Eidelson is a freelance writer and a union organizer based in Philadelphia. He's written about politics as a contributor to Campus Progress, a columnist for the Yale Daily News, and a research fellow for Talking Points Media. His work has appeared online at publications including In These Times, Dissent, Washington Monthly, and Alternet. Check out his blog: http://www.josheidelson.com Twitter: @josheidelson E-mail: "jeidelson" at "gmail" dot com.
© 2011 In These Times All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/151465


--------------


This really sticks in my craw. I'm sure a lot of people would say "you should just consider yourself lucky that you have a job". No. NO. Sure, it's good to be thankful for what you have. Sure, a lot of people are desperately looking for a job. Sure, unemployment/underemployment is sky high and when you have rent to pay, family to support, etc, you don't always have the luxury of choice- sometimes you do what you gotta do. I get that. I understand that. BUT... especially in an economic climate of un/underemployment, employers feel justified in taking advantage of workers' desperation- stripping or denying benefits, overworking employees (some without even the compensation of overtime) or cutting hours, unsafe working conditions, and a minimum wage paycheck that barely covers the cost of living, if it does at all. True, employers have exploited workers for as long as the concept of employment has existed, but they can really get away with it now when jobs aren't as plentiful. The mentality among employers seems to be that of "you need us more than we need you'. In the modern economy, the worker is expendable, or is at least made to think he or she is expendable. And most people go along with it, whether because they feel they have no other option or because we've been indoctrinated into a belief of extreme allegiance to work. Sacrificing health, happiness, and a majority of your life to an unsatisfying, unrewarding, abusive, low-paying job is de rigeur for the American worker, and if you don't subscribe to this mentality you're lazy, you have no work ethic, and you just expect to have everything handed to you. It's all part of the "American Dream" of pulling yourself up by the proverbial bootstraps- working the crappy jobs with a smile, taking the poor-treatment, low-pay, being demoralized and dehumanized on a daily basis. Don't complain. If you do you're greedy, entitled, and idealistic. The employer is King and we are simply his lowly subjects, thanking His Majesty for whatever tiny crumbs he may throw our way.


The thing is, it shouldn't be that way. Collectively American workers- whether bussing tables, working an assembly line, or waiting on customers at a slick gadget retailer, need to grow a backbone. You (yes, you) are a commodity. Your skills (and even "unskilled labor" requires skill) are a commodity. Employers realize this and they thrive on the fact that most workers are too demoralized or indoctrinated in this dominant thought pattern of supreme allegiance to "work" to realize that this commodity of skill gives them power.


Truthfully, employment is (or should be) a two-way street. You have a valuable commodity to offer: your skill, your time, etc, and they have a valuable commodity to offer, namely money. Just as gold, silver, and oil are commodities, the skill of the worker is also a commodity. Most people wouldn't sell a piece of gold jewelry for 5 dollars. That's far underestimating it's value. So why are we selling our skills and our time- hell, our very LIVES even, when we get compensated so poorly?


Now you might think, ok this is all well and good and easy for you to say: refuse the lousy job, don't pay rent and end up living in a van down by the river. And to an extent, there is very little one person can do alone. However, if more and more people change their thought pattern and say "enough already", unionize, strike, or collectively refuse to work at low-paying, demoralizing jobs, employers will be forced to recognize the value of their workforce and change their behavior accordingly. As long as people are willing to keep quiet, keep their head down, and accept being treated poorly as a simply a consequence of being in the "working world", employers will continue to behave just as they do now because they know that for every one person with the audacity to expect and demand to be treated for what they are worth, there are ten people behind him/her that will work as wage slaves. Employers like Apple need to be forced to realize that really, they need us as much (if not more) than we need them.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Bibliography since April

Books:

Beauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices In the West by Sheila Jeffreys
"Look At My Ugly Face!" Myths and musings on beauty and other perilous obsessions with
        women's appearance  by Sara Halprin
Gyn/Ecology by Mary Daly
Cunt: A Declaration of Independence by Inga Muscio
Bitchfest: Ten Years of Cultural Criticism from the Pages of Bitch Magazine by Lisa Jervis, Andi Zeisler and Margaret Cho
The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf
Eccentric Glamour by Simon Doonan
We Don't Need Another Wave: Dispatches From the Next Generation of Feminists by Melody Berger
Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy
Grassroots: A Field Guide for Feminist Activism by Jennifer Baumgardner, Amy Richards,
      and Winona LaDuke
Fashion Victim: Our Love-Hate Relationship With Dressing, Shopping, and the Cost of Style by
      Michelle Lee
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (available at Project Gutenberg!)
Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman (available at Project Gutenberg!)

Documentaries:

Exit Through the Gift Shop
The Wild and Wonderful Whites
Affluenza
The Corporation
America the Beautiful
The American Ruling Class
Marwencol
Collapse
Anarchy In America
Argentina's Economic Collapse
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
No Logo: Brands, Globalization, and Resistance
Louis Theroux: Under the Knife
Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family In America
Louis Theroux: America's Most Hated Family In Crisis
Louis Theroux and the Nazis
Louis Theroux: Fundamentalist Christianity
Louis Theroux: The City Addicted to Crystal Meth
What Would Jesus Buy?
The American Dream (cartoon)
The Virgin Daughters
The End of Suburbia
After Democracy


TV Series:


Lockdown
Gangland
This American Life

*Note: I don't have these in proper citation format. Doing so is a waste of my fuckin time.  If you want to know who published the book or made the documentary, you can Google it.

From my online dating profile

"I don't wear high heel shoes or pretty dresses or get mani/pedis or shave. I roll out of bed and maybe shower if I smell and brush my teeth. My hair dries itself in the breeze and usually I see putting on makeup as a colossal waste of my time and money, but I still love my jewelry. My fingers are perpetually calloused and my nails are perpetually dirty. I wear sandals with chipped orange and purple polish or black boots and I'll wear the same holey black jeans for a week straight along with some shirt I probably thrifted because I'm poor and also because I refuse to fund an exploitative fashion industry. I carry a giant tattered hippie bag slung over my shoulder and laden with at least one book and my journal and probably some crosswords and my smokes. And when I walk down the street I try not to size up other girls, but I do try to hold my head up high and remind myself that I'm just as good as everyone else."

"And I don't care about how much money you have or your job or your car or your lack of six-pack abs- I care about your personality, your sense of humor, your interests, and your ability to act like a decent human being."

Sunday, June 5, 2011

HHS Rejects Indiana Law to Defund Planned Parenthood

(via Feminist Majority Foundation: http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=13039)
June 2, 2011

Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notified Indiana state officials that an Indiana law prohibiting state agencies from contracting with clinics offering abortions violates federal law. Governor Mitch Daniels (R) signed the law on May 10, and in April, the state Senate and House voted to cut about $2 million in federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood, much of which is for Medicaid services. HHS Medical Administrator Don Berwick clarified, "Medicaid programs may not exclude qualified health care providers from providing services that are funded under the program because of a provider's scope of practice."

Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, stated, "By issuing a letter to the state of Indiana rejecting its proposal to bar Planned Parenthood from providing preventive health care through Medicaid, HHS is sending a clear message that states cannot play politics with women's health and prevent Medicaid patients form choosing their preferred health care providers. The new law in Indiana prevents nearly 10,000 women from accessing preventive health care, such as contraception, cancer screenings, and STD testing and treatment, from Planned Parenthood health centers."

Last week, US Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and twenty-nine other Senate Democrats issued a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius requesting that HHS officials advise Medicaid directors not to implement measures to prevent Medicaid or Title X funding from going to clinics that offer abortion service.

Following the HHS decision to block the Indiana law to defund Planned Parenthood, Senator Blumenthal stated, "This step is a powerful, prompt rebuke to Indiana- and a strong warning to other states considering similar ill-advised and illegal action denying essential health care to women... I hope other state legislatures considering similarly misguided attempts to block women, teens, and families from the health care and family planning services they need and deserve will reconsider these dangerous proposals, and I remain committed to standing up for women's health."

Media Resources: Associated Press 6/1/11; Statement of Richard Blumenthal 6/1/11; Feminist Daily Newswire 5/31/11

And I Should Know

From: http://nymag.com/print/?/arts/tv/upfronts/2011/roseanne-barr-2011-5/

Roseanne Barr was a sitcom star, a creator and a product, the agitator and the abused, a domestic goddess and a feminist pioneer. That was twenty years ago. But as far as she’s concerned, not much has changed.


During the recent and overly publicized breakdown of ­Charlie Sheen, I was repeatedly contacted by the media and asked to comment, as it was assumed that I know a thing or two about starring on a sitcom, fighting with producers, nasty divorces, public meltdowns, and bombing through a live comedytour. I have, however, never smoked crack or taken too many drugs, unless you count alcohol as a drug (I don’t). But I do know what it’s like to be seized by bipolar thoughts that make one spout wise about Tiger Blood and brag about winning when one is actually losing.

It’s hard to tell whether one is winning or, in fact, losing once one starts to think of oneself as a commodity, or a product, or a character, or a voice for the downtrodden. It’s called losing perspective. Fame’s a bitch. It’s hard to handle and drives you nuts. Yes, it’s true that your sense of entitlement grows exponentially with every perk until it becomes too stupendous a weight to walk around under, but it’s a cutthroat business, show, and without the perks, plain ol’ fame and fortune just ain’t worth the trouble.

“Winning” in Hollywood means not just power, money, and complimentary smoked-salmon pizza, but also that everyone around you fails just as you are peaking. When you become No. 1, you might begin to believe, as Cher once said in an interview, that you are “one of God’s favorite children,” one of the few who made it through the gauntlet and survived. The idea that your ego is not ego at all but submission to the will of the Lord starts to dawn on you as you recognize that only by God’s grace did you make it through the raging attack of idea pirates and woman haters, to ascend to the top of Bigshit Showbiz Mountain.

All of that sounds very much like the diagnosis for bipolar disorder, which more and more stars are claiming to have these days. I have it, as well as several other mental illnesses, but then, I’ve always been a trendsetter, even though I’m seldom credited with those kinds of things. And I was not crazy before I created, wrote, and starred in television’s first feminist and working-class-family sitcom (also its last).

I so admire Dave Chappelle. You did right for yourself by walking away, Dave. I did not have the guts to do it, because I knew I would never get another chance to carry so large a message on behalf of the men and women I grew up with, and that mattered most to me.

After my 1985 appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, I was wooed by producers in Hollywood, who told me they wanted to turn my act into a sitcom. When Marcy Carsey—who co-owned Carsey-Werner with her production partner, Tom Werner (producers of The Cosby Show)—asked me to sign, I was impressed. I considered The Cosby Show to be some of the greatest and most revolutionary TV ever.

Marcy presented herself as a sister in arms. I was a cutting-edge comic, and she said she got that I wanted to do a realistic show about a strong mother who was not a victim of Patriarchal Consumerist Bullshit—in other words, the persona I had carefully crafted over eight previous years in dive clubs and biker bars: a fierce working-class Domestic Goddess. It was 1987, and it seemed people were primed and ready to watch a sitcom that didn’t have anything like the rosy glow of middle-class confidence and comfort, and didn’t try to fake it. ABC seemed to agree. They picked up Roseanne in 1988.

It didn’t take long for me to get a taste of the staggering sexism and class bigotry that would make the first season of Roseanne god-awful. It was at the premiere party when I learned that my stories and ideas—and the ideas of my sister and my first husband, Bill—had been stolen. The pilot was screened, and I saw the opening credits for the first time, which included this: CREATED BY MATT WILLIAMS. I was devastated and felt so betrayed that I stood up and left the party. Not one person noticed.

I confronted Marcy under the bleachers on the sound stage when we were shooting the next episode. I asked her how I could continue working for a woman who had let a man take credit for my work—who wouldn’t even share credit with me—after talking to me about sisterhood and all that bullshit. She started crying and said, “I guess I’m going to have to tell Brandon [Stoddard, then president of ABC Entertainment] that I can’t deliver this show.” I said, “Cry all you want to, but you figure out a way to put my name on the show I created, or kiss my ass good-bye.”
Season one, 1988: From top, Sarah Gilbert (Darlene), Lecy Goranson (Becky), Laurie Metcalf (Jackie), Goodman, Barr, and Michael Fishman (D.J.).  

I went to complain to Brandon, thinking he could set things straight, as having a robbed star might be counterproductive to his network. He told me, “You were over 21 when you signed that contract.” He looked at me as if I were an arrogant waitress run amok.

I went to my agent and asked him why he never told me that I would not be getting the “created by” credit. He halfheartedly admitted that he had “a lot going on at the time” and was “sorry.” I also learned that it was too late to lodge a complaint with the Writers Guild. I immediately left that agency and went to the William Morris Agency. I figured out that Carsey and Werner had bullshitted Matt Williams into believing that it was his show and I was his “star” as effectively as they had bullshitted me into thinking that it was my show and Matt Williams was my “scribe.” I contacted Bernie Brillstein and a young talent manager in his office, Brad Grey, and asked them to help me. They suggested that I walk away and start over, but I was too afraid I would never get another show.

It was pretty clear that no one really cared about the show except me, and that Matt and Marcy and ABC had nothing but contempt for me—someone who didn’t show deference, didn’t keep her mouth shut, didn’t do what she was told. Marcy acted as if I were anti-feminist by resisting her attempt to steal my whole life out from under me. I made the mistake of thinking Marcy was a powerful woman in her own right. I’ve come to learn that there are none in TV. There aren’t powerful men, for that matter, either—unless they work for an ad company or a market-study group. Those are the people who decide what gets on the air and what doesn’t.

Complaining about the “created by” credit made an enemy of Matt. He wasted no time bullying and undermining me, going so far as to ask my co-star, John Goodman, who played Roseanne Conner’s husband, Dan, if he would do the show without me. (Goodman said no.) That caused my first nervous breakdown.
“I so admire Dave Chappelle. I did not have the guts to walk away.”

To survive the truly hostile environment on set, I started to pray nonstop to my God, as working-class women often do, and to listen nonstop to Patti Smith’s “People Have the Power.” I read The Art of War and kept the idea “He that cares the most, wins” upmost in my mind. I knew I cared the most, since I had the most to lose. I made a chart of names and hung them on my dressing-room door; it listed every person who worked on the show, and I put a check next to those I intended to fire when Roseanne became No. 1, which I knew it would.

My breakdown deepened around the fourth episode, when I confronted the wardrobe master about the Sears, Roebuck outfits that made me look like a show pony rather than a working-class mom. I wanted vintage plaid shirts, T-shirts, and jeans, not purple stretch pants with green-and-blue smocks. She bought everything but what I requested, so I wore my own clothes to work, thinking she was just absent-minded. I was still clueless about the extent of the subterfuge.

Eventually she told me that she had been told by one of Matt’s producers—his chief mouthpiece—“not to listen to what Roseanne wants to wear.” This producer was a woman, a type I became acquainted with at the beginning of my stand-up career in Denver. I cared little for them: blondes in high heels who were so anxious to reach the professional level of the men they worshipped, fawned over, served, built up, and flattered that they would stab other women in the back. They are the ultimate weapon used by men against actual feminists who try to work in media, and they are never friends to other women, you can trust me on that.

I grabbed a pair of wardrobe scissors and ran up to the big house to confront the producer. (The “big house” was what I called the writers’ building. I rarely went there, since it was disgusting. Within minutes, one of the writers would crack a stinky-pussy joke that would make me want to murder them. Male writers have zero interest in being nice to women, including their own assistants, few of whom are ever promoted to the rank of “writer,” even though they do all the work while the guys sit on their asses taking the credit. Those are the women who deserve the utmost respect.) I walked into this woman’s office, held the scissors up to show her I meant business, and said, “Bitch, do you want me to cut you?” We stood there for a second or two, just so I could make sure she was receptive to my POV. I asked why she had told the wardrobe master to not listen to me, and she said, “Because we do not like the way you choose to portray this character.” I said, “This is no fucking character! This is my show, and I created it—not Matt, and not Carsey-Werner, and not ABC. You watch me. I will win this battle if I have to kill every last white bitch in high heels around here.”
Season nine, 1997: The last season, with the second Becky, Sarah Chalke.  

The next battle came when Matt sent down a line for me that I found incredibly insulting—not just to myself but to John, who I was in love with, secretly. The line was a ridiculously sexist interpretation of what a feminist thinks—something to the effect of “You’re my equal in bed, but that’s it.” I could not say it convincingly enough for Matt, and his hand-picked director walked over and gave me a note in front of the entire crew: “Say it like you mean it … That is a direct note from Matt.” What followed went something like this: My lovely acting coach, Roxanne Rogers (a sister of Sam Shepard), piped up and said, “Never give an actor a note in front of the crew. Take her aside and give her the note privately—that is what good directors do.” She made sure to say this in front of the entire crew. Then she suggested that I request a line change. So I did. Matt, who was watching from his office, yelled over the loudspeaker, “Say the line as written!” I said, “No, I don’t like the line. I find it repulsive, and my character would not say it.” Matt said, “Yes, she would say it. She’s hot to trot and to get her husband in bed with her, and give it to her like she wants it.” I replied that this was not what she would say or do: “It’s a castrating line that only an idiot would think to write for a real live woman who loves her husband, you cocksucker.” ABC’s lawyers were called in. They stood around the bed while the cameras filmed me saying, very politely, over and over, “Line change, please.” After four hours of this, I called my then-lawyer, Barry Hirsch, and demanded to be let out of my contract. I couldn’t take it any longer—the abuse, humiliation, theft, and lack of respect for my work, my health, my life. He explained that he had let it go on for hours on purpose and that I had finally won. He had sent a letter to the network and Carsey-Werner that said, “Matt wasted money that he could have saved with a simple line change. He cost you four hours in production budget.” That turned the tide in my favor.

Barry told me Matt would be gone after the thirteenth episode. Which didn’t stop him from making my life hell until then. Some days, I’d just stand in the set’s kitchen weeping loudly. The crew would surround me and encourage me to continue. CJ, one of my favorite cameramen—an ­African-­American married to a white woman—would say, “Come on, Rosie, I need this job. I have five kids, and two of them are white!”

I was constantly thinking about my own kids’ being able to go to college, and I wrote jokes like a machine—jokes that I insisted be included in the scripts (lots of times, the writers would tell me that the pages got lost). But thanks to Barry, my then-manager Arlyne Rothberg, Roxanne, my brave dyke sister Geraldine Barr, the cast of great actors, the crew—who became my drinking buddies—the wardrobe department, and the craft-services folks, I showed up and lived out the first thirteen episodes, after which Matt left. Without all of them, I never would have made it. (Most of the crew now work for Chuck Lorre, who I fired from my show; his sitcoms star some of my co-stars and tackle many of the subjects Roseanne did. Imitation is the sincerest form of show business.)

Matt stayed just long enough to ensure him a lifetime’s worth of residuals. Another head writer was brought on, and at first he actually tried to listen to what I wanted to do. But within a few shows, I realized he wasn’t much more of a team player than Matt. He brought his own writers with him, all male, all old. Most of them had probably never worked with a woman who did not serve them coffee. It must have been a shock to their system to find me in a position to disapprove their jokes.

When the show went to No. 1 in December 1988, ABC sent a chocolate “1” to congratulate me. Guess they figured that would keep the fat lady happy—or maybe they thought I hadn’t heard (along with the world) that male stars with No. 1 shows were given Bentleys and Porsches. So me and George Clooney [who played Roseanne Conner’s boss for the first season] took my chocolate prize outside, where I snapped a picture of him hitting it with a baseball bat. I sent that to ABC.
Not long after that, I cleaned house. Honestly, I enjoyed firing the people I’d checked on the back of my dressing-room door. The writers packed their bags and went to join Matt on Tim Allen’s new show, Home Improvement, so none of them suffered at all. Tim didn’t get credit either.
But at least everyone began to credit me. I was assumed to be a genius and eccentric instead of a crazy bitch, and for a while it felt pretty nice. I hired comics that I had worked with in clubs, rather than script writers. I promoted several of the female assistants—who had done all the work of assembling the scripts ­anyway—to full writers. (I did that for one or two members of my crew as well.) I gave Joss Whedon and Judd Apatow their first writing jobs, as well as many other untried writers who went on to great success.
Call me immodest—moi?—but I honestly think Roseanne is even more ahead of its time today, when Americans are, to use a technical term from classical economics, screwed. We had our fun; it was a sitcom. But it also wasn’t The Brady Bunch; the kids were wiseasses, and so were the parents. I and the mostly great writers in charge of crafting the show ­every week never forgot that we needed to make people laugh, but the struggle to survive, and to break taboos, was equally important. And that was my goal from the beginning.
The end of my addiction to fame happened at the exact moment Roseanne dropped out of the top ten, in the seventh of our nine seasons. It was mysteriously instantaneous! I clearly remember that blackest of days, when I had my office call the Palm restaurant for reservations on a Saturday night, at the last second as per usual. My assistant, Hilary, who is still working for me, said—while clutching the phone to her chest with a look of horror, a look I can recall now as though it were only yesterday: “The Palm said they are full!” Knowing what that really meant sent me over the edge. It was a gut shot with a sawed-off scattershot, buckshot-loaded pellet gun. I made Hil call the Palm back, disguise her voice, and say she was calling from the offices of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Instantly, Hil was given the big 10-4 by the Palm management team. I became enraged, and though she was uncomfortable doing it (Hil is a professional woman), I forced her to call back at 7:55 and cancel the 8:00 reservation, saying that Roseanne—who had joined Tom and Nicole’s party of seven—had persuaded them to join her at Denny’s on Sunset Boulevard.
The feeling of being used all those years just because I was in the top ten—not for my money or even my gluttony—was sobering indeed. I vowed that I would make a complete change top to bottom and rid myself of the desires that had laid me low. (I also stopped eating meat for a year, out of bitterness and mourning for the Palm’s bone-in rib-eye steaks.) As inevitably happens to all stars, I could not look myself in the mirror for one more second. My dependence on empty flattery, without which I feared I would evaporate, masked a deeper addiction to the bizarro world of fame. I had sold my time and company at deflated prices just for the thrill of reserving the best tables at the best restaurants at the very last minute with a phone call to the maître d’—or the owner himself, whose friendship I coddled just to ensure premium access to the aforementioned, unbelievably good smoked-salmon pizza.
I finally found the right lawyer to tell me what scares TV producers worse than anything—too late for me. What scares these guys—who think that the perks of success include humiliating and destroying the star they work for (read Lorre’s personal attacks on Charlie Sheen in his vanity cards at the end of Two and a Half Men)—isn’t getting caught stealing or being made to pay for that; it’s being charged with fostering a “hostile work environment.” If I could do it all over, I’d sue ABC and Carsey-­Werner under those provisions. Hollywood hates labor, and hates shows about labor worse than any other thing. And that’s why you won’t be seeing another Roseanne anytime soon. Instead, all over the tube, you will find enterprising, overmedicated, painted-up, capitalist whores claiming to be housewives. But I’m not bitter.
Nothing real or truthful makes its way to TV unless you are smart and know how to sneak it in, and I would tell you how I did it, but then I would have to kill you. Based on Two and a Half Men’s success, it seems viewers now prefer their comedy dumb and sexist. Charlie Sheen was the world’s most famous john, and a sitcom was written around him. That just says it all. Doing tons of drugs, smacking prostitutes around, holding a knife up to the head of your wife—sure, that sounds like a dream come true for so many guys out there, but that doesn’t make it right! People do what they can get away with (or figure they can), and Sheen is, in fact, a product of what we call politely the “culture.” Where I can relate to the Charlie stuff is his undisguised contempt for certain people in his work environment and his unwillingness to play a role that’s expected of him on his own time.
But, again, I’m not bitter. I’m really not. The fact that my fans have thanked and encouraged me for doing what I used to get in trouble for doing (shooting my big mouth off) has been very healing. And somewhere along the way, I realized that TV and our culture had changed because of a woman named Roseanne Conner, whom I am honored to have written jokes for.

Barr now lives in Hawaii, where she farms macadamia nuts. She has a new book, Roseannearchy (Gallery; $26), and will return to TV in Roseanne’s Nuts, a Lifetime reality show.
 
*********
This is why I love Roseanne.  (And aren't those photos beautiful?)
 

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Coochies and va jay jays... a rant about a major pet peeve

These are words I really hate:

snatch
cooch
cooter
hoo-ha
beaver
cha-cha
and especially VA JAY JAY

It drives me insane when women have to use some cutesy non-word to describe a part of their anatomy because somehow there is something wrong and offensive about using the correct terms to describe our bodies.  And while we're on the subject...

Nobody shaves their vagina.  Hair does not grow on your vagina. The vagina is "the genital canal in the female, leading from the opening of the vulva to the cervix of the uterus"*.
vulva is "the external genital organs of the female, including the labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, and vestibule of the vagina"*.

Now I know men have plenty of names for their parts both medically correct and otherwise:
cock, dick, balls, etc, but they are not cutesy baby words made up because men are afraid of the words "penis" and "testicles". 

These are words I do not hate:

pussy
cunt

These words are also used as insults.  Pussy denotes cowardice.  Cunt is a term used for a woman who is perceived as hostile, strong-willed, opinionated, moody, angry, etc...
No one calls a man a cunt.  Calling a man a pussy is highly insulting.  These words attempt to link the female anatomy to characteristics and behaviors that are usually undesirable in our society.  To be a pussy is to be something less than acceptable.  Used in a derogatory manner these words associate "negative" aspects of personality with femaleness, ie: to be cowardly is to be female and conversely, to be female is to be cowardly.  These words used as insults even go so far as to create a subconscious legislation of what is "socially correct" female and male behavior. 
I call bullshit.
Pussy and cunt are powerful words and using these powerful words in a positive manner
to describe vulvas/vaginas can be one way to strip the negative connotations of such words while giving them a new power and a positive association- one that females can claim as ours and ours alone. 
I like the word pussy partly because I like kitties.  The pussy between my legs is warm and covered with soft downy hair.  I purr when it is petted the right way.
Cunt is strong and powerful.  Cunts have thunderous wonderful spasmodic orgasms.  Cunts bleed in lunar cycles.  Cunts give birth.  Life comes from cunts. The epitome of creation comes from cunts.   

I have a vagina. I have a vulva. I also have arms, legs, fingers, toes, a nose, lips, ears.  I am not embarrassed to say these words, but maybe I should start referring to my nose as my "sniffy" or my "noo-noo"... that would make about as much sense as "hoo-ha" or va jay jay, now wouldn't it?

Definitions from The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.  Accessed via http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/

Transgender Clownfish? Gender Diversity Lesson at California School Riles Critics

By Joshua Rhett Miller and Claudia Cowan
Published: May 25, 2011  foxnews.com

A gender diversity lesson at a California elementary school that featured single-sex geckos and transgender clownfish has angered conservative critics, who question its appropriateness for in-class instruction.
Students in all grades at Oakland's Redwood Heights Elementary School got an introductory lesson on the topic on Monday. Fox News was allowed to sit in on the lessons, which included teachings to kindergartners and fourth-graders. 
The lessons were presented by an outside anti-bullying educational group called Gender Spectrum, paid for with a $1,500 grant from the California Teachers Union. 
Joel Baum, director of education and training for Gender Spectrum, taught the classes. In the kindergarten class he asked the 5- and 6-year-olds to identify if a toy was a "girl toy" or a "boy toy" or both. He also asked which students liked the color pink, prompting many to raise their hands, to which he responded that that boys can like pink, too. 
n the fourth-grade class, Baum focused on specific animal species, like sea horses, where the males can have or take care of the children. He suggested that even if someone was born with male “private parts” but identified more with being a girl, that was something to be “accepted” and “respected.”
Students in the class were given cards, which included information on all-girl geckos and transgender clownfish, to illustrate the variations in nature that occur in humans, too. 
“Gender identity is one’s own sense of themselves. Do they know themselves to be a girl? Do they know themselves to be a boy? Do they know themselves to be a combination?” Baum said. "Gender identity is a spectrum where people can be girls, feel like girls, they feel like boys, they feel like both, or they can feel like neither.”
Oakland Unified School District spokesman Troy Flint told FoxNews.com that the two-day lesson plan for all 350 students at the school was intended to emphasize that not all children will conform to gender norms. 
"What it does emphasize is that there are differences," Flint said. "And that not all children will conform to gender norms around areas such as clothing or hair, or the colors they prefer. We should be accepting of these differences in the interest of creating an environment where all children are welcome." 
Flint said the two-day lessons were given to students in age-appropriate groups, with kindergartners and first-grade students paired together. 
Second- and third-grade students were another group, and another was made up of fourth- and fifth-grade students, he said. The lessons, which were required under school district policy to address issues of gender identity, were not intended to advocate a "particular lifestyle," Flint said. 
"But we are trying to promote a level of acceptance that will allow all students to participate in school equally, and that is an important equity issue, which is supported by federal, state and local law, as well as school board policy," he said. 
Principal Sara Stone has said the lessons are part of a larger effort to provide a more welcoming and safer classroom environment. 
Critics, however, were unmoved by that explanation, claiming the lesson does not represent the values of most Oakland residents. 
"This instruction does not represent the values of the majority of families in Oakland," attorney Kevin Snider of the Pacific Justice Institute said in a written statement. "Though to many this may seem extreme, based upon some of the bills now pending in the Capitol, such as SB 48, this will be the new normal in California’s K-12 public schools." 
Brad Dacus, president of The Pacific Justice Institute, told Fox News that three families chose to keep their kids home that day. 
Legal counsel is now being provided to parents who opposed the lessons, Snider said.
"Unfortunately, many parents in the school are unaware that this is being taught," he said. "If you are a parent of a child enrolled in a school where this instruction is taking place, you may consider keeping your child home on days when this material is being presented." 
Flint said all parents were informed of the lesson in advance, adding that just three families kept their children home from school during the lessons. 
In a blog posting on the website for Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, Erin Brown said the plans were the latest example of a "gender-bending" agenda infiltrating mainstream culture. 
"This is only the latest example of what seems to be a New-Age, gender-bending agenda pushed into the mainstream media by those who refuse to accept the traditional sex differences between men and women," Brown wrote. 
To further illustrate her point, Brown also cited a Toronto couple who has riled some for refusing to assign a specific gender to their third child and an advertisement released earlier this year by clothing company J. Crew that depicting a 5-year-old boy with pink toenails. 
The Associated Press contributed to this report

Monday, May 23, 2011

Queens Lawmaker Proposes "Panic Button" for Hotel Housekeepers

Monday, May 23, 2011 | Updated 10:43 AM EDT

A New York assemblyman says he wants the state to require hotels to provide their housekeepers with an emergency "panic button" that would help protect them from sexual assaults on the job.
Assemblyman Rory Lancman, a Democrat from Queens, said he will introduce the bill Monday. The move comes a week after former International Monetary Fund Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn was charged with sexually assaulting a Manhattan hotel maid.
"We send hotel workers, housekeepers into rooms by themselves without any other staff, without any other security," Lancman said at a news conference Sunday outside the Sofitel Hotel, the site of Strauss-Kahn's alleged sexual assault of a hotel maid last week.
Lancman said attacks on hotel housekeepers are common, and though the incidents "may not be as brutal or as sensational" as the allegations in the Strauss-Kahn case, housekeepers are often inappropriately groped or propositioned.
Lancman referred to a New York Times article on Saturday highlighting the sexual affronts hotel housekeepers have long had to face.
he proposed legislation calls for hotels to provide a small device for housekeepers that would, at the touch of a button, trigger an audible alarm or alert hotel security.
He estimated a cost of $20 to $40 per device, though he said it would cost "significantly less" for hotels to buy in bulk.
The Associated Press said a review of court documents and news reports found at least 10 other hotel housekeepers who say they've been attacked in the U.S. in the last three years.
Labor groups said other cases are kept quiet because the victims are illegal immigrants or because hotels are wary of scaring off guests.

Source: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Queens-Lawmaker-Proposes-Panic-Button-for-Hotel-Housekeepers-122419684.html

Wouldn't this be a great idea?  Not just for hotel housekeepers but for any worker who enters residences/hotel rooms alone... like one of those life alert necklaces... maybe even with a GPS that can be activated for emergency services...  In the past I've noticed that several hotel housekeepers may work a floor at once... I don't know if this is common practice, but a call button could be really good additional measure to ensure safety. 

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Parents keep child's gender secret


May 21, 2011
Jayme Poisson
STAFF REPORTER

“So it’s a boy, right?” a neighbour calls out as Kathy Witterick walks by, her four month old baby, Storm, strapped to her chest in a carrier.
Each week the woman asks the same question about the baby with the squishy cheeks and feathery blond hair.
Witterick smiles, opens her arms wide, comments on the sunny spring day, and keeps walking.
She’s used to it. The neighbours know Witterick and her husband, David Stocker, are raising a genderless baby. But they don’t pretend to understand it.
While there’s nothing ambiguous about Storm’s genitalia, they aren’t telling anyone whether their third child is a boy or a girl.
The only people who know are Storm’s brothers, Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, a close family friend and the two midwives who helped deliver the baby in a birthing pool at their Toronto home on New Year’s Day.
“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” says Witterick, bouncing Storm, dressed in a red-fleece jumper, on her lap at the kitchen table.
“If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs,” says Stocker.
When Storm was born, the couple sent an email to friends and family: “We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now — a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime (a more progressive place? ...).”
Their announcement was met with stony silence. Then the deluge of criticisms began. Not just about Storm, but about how they were parenting their other two children.
The grandparents were supportive, but resented explaining the gender-free baby to friends and co-workers. They worried the children would be ridiculed. Friends said they were imposing their political and ideological values on a newborn. Most of all, people said they were setting their kids up for a life of bullying in a world that can be cruel to outsiders.
Witterick and Stocker believe they are giving their children the freedom to choose who they want to be, unconstrained by social norms about males and females. Some say their choice is alienating.
In an age where helicopter parents hover nervously over their kids micromanaging their lives, and tiger moms ferociously push their progeny to get into Harvard, Stocker, 39, and Witterick, 38, believe kids can make meaningful decisions for themselves from a very early age.
“What we noticed is that parents make so many choices for their children. It’s obnoxious,” says Stocker.
Jazz and Kio have picked out their own clothes in the boys and girls sections of stores since they were 18 months old. Just this week, Jazz unearthed a pink dress at Value Village, which he loves because it “really poofs out at the bottom. It feels so nice.” The boys decide whether to cut their hair or let it grow.
Like all mothers and fathers, Witterick and Stocker struggle with parenting decisions. The boys are encouraged to challenge how they’re expected to look and act based on their sex.
“We thought that if we delayed sharing that information, in this case hopefully, we might knock off a couple million of those messages by the time that Storm decides Storm would like to share,” says Witterick.
They don’t want to isolate their kids from the world, but, when it’s meaningful, talk about gender.
This past winter, the family took a vacation to Cuba with Witterick’s parents. Since they weren’t fluent in Spanish, they flipped a coin at the airport to decide what to tell people. It landed on heads, so for the next week, everyone who asked was told Storm was a boy. The language changed immediately. “What a big, strong boy,” people said.
The moment a child’s sex is announced, so begins the parade of pink and barrage of blue. Tutus and toy trucks aren’t far behind. The couple says it only intensifies with age.
“In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s (he) wants to be?!.” Witterick writes in an email.
**
Stocker teaches at City View Alternative, a tiny school west of Dufferin Grove Park, with four teachers and about 60 Grade 7 and 8 students whose lessons are framed by social-justice issues around class, race and gender.
When Kio was a baby, the family travelled through the mountains of Mexico, speaking with the Zapatistas, a revolutionary group who shun mainstream politics as corrupt and demand greater indigenous rights. In 1994, about 150 people died in violent clashes with the Mexican military, but the leftist movement has been largely peaceful since.
Last year, they spent two weeks in Cuba, living with local families and learning about the revolution. Witterick has worked in violence prevention, giving workshops to teachers. These days, she volunteers, offering breastfeeding support. At the moment, she is a full-time mom.
Both come from liberal families. Stocker grew up listening to Free to Be ... You and Me, a 1972 record with a central message of gender neutrality. Witterick remembers her brother mucking around with gender as a teen in the ’80s, wearing lipstick and carrying handbags like David Bowie and Mick Jagger.
The family lives in a cream-coloured two-storey brick home in the city’s Junction Triangle neighbourhood. Their front porch is crammed with bicycles, including Kio’s pink and purple tricycle. Inside, it’s organized clutter. The children's arts and crafts projects are stacked in the bookcases, maps hang on the walls and furniture is well-used and of a certain vintage.
Upstairs they co-sleep curled up on two mattresses pushed together on the floor of the master bedroom, under a heap of mismatched pillows and blankets. During the day, the kids build forts with the pillows and pretend to walk a tightrope between the mattresses.
On a recent Tuesday, the boys finish making paper animal puppets and a handmade sign to celebrate their dad’s birthday. “I love to do laundry with dad,” reads one message. They nuzzle Storm, splayed out on the floor. The baby squeals with delight.
Witterick practices unschooling, an offshoot of home-schooling centred on the belief that learning should be driven by a child’s curiosity. There are no report cards, no textbooks and no tests. For unschoolers, learning is about exploring and asking questions, “not something that happens by rote from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. weekdays in a building with a group of same-age people, planned, implemented and assessed by someone else,” says Witterick. The fringe movement is growing. An unschooling conference in Toronto drew dozens of families last fall.
The kids have a lot of say in how their day unfolds. They decide if they want to squish through the mud, chase garter snakes in the park or bake cupcakes.
**
Jazz — soft-spoken, with a slight frame and curious brown eyes — keeps his hair long, preferring to wear it in three braids, two in the front and one in the back, even though both his parents have close-cropped hair. His favourite colour is pink, although his parents don’t own a piece of pink clothing between them. He loves to paint his fingernails and wears a sparkly pink stud in one ear, despite the fact his parents wear no nail polish or jewelry.
Kio keeps his curly blond hair just below his chin. The 2-year-old loves purple, although he’s happiest in any kind of pyjama pants.
“As a result, Jazz and now Kio are almost exclusively assumed to be girls,” says Stocker, adding he and Witterick don’t out them. It’s the boys’ choice whether they want to offer a correction.
On a recent trip to High Park, Jazz, wearing pink shorts, patterned pink socks and brightly coloured elastics on his braids, runs and skips across the street.
“That’s a princess!” says a smiling crossing guard, ushering the little boy along. “And that’s a princess, too,” she says again, pointing at Kio with her big red sign.
Jazz doesn’t mind. One of his favourite books is 10,000 Dresses, the story of a boy who loves to dress up. But he doesn’t like being called a girl. Recently, he asked his mom to write a note on his application to the High Park Nature Centre because he likes the group leaders and wants them to know he’s a boy.
Jazz was old enough for school last September, but chose to stay home. “When we would go and visit programs, people — children and adults — would immediately react with Jazz over his gender,” says Witterick, adding the conversation would gravitate to his choice of pink or his hairstyle.
That’s mostly why he doesn’t want to go to school. When asked if it upsets him, he nods, but doesn’t say more.
Instead he grabs a handmade portfolio filled with his drawings and poems. In its pages is a booklet written under his pseudonym, the “Gender Explorer.” In purple and pink lettering, adorned with butterflies, it reads: “Help girls do boy things. Help boys do girl things. Let your kid be whoever they are!”
*
Storm was named after whipped winds and dark rain clouds, because they are beautiful and transformative.
“When I was pregnant, it was really this intense time around Jazz having experiences with gender and I was feeling like I needed some good parenting skills to support him through that,” says Witterick.
It began as a offhand remark. “Hey, what if we just didn’t tell?” And then Stocker found a book in his school library called X: A Fabulous Child’s Story by Lois Gould. The book, published in 1978, is about raising not a boy or a girl, but X. There’s a happy ending here. Little X — who loved to play football and weave baskets — faces the taunting head on, proving that X is the most well-adjusted child ever examined by “an impartial team of Xperts.”
“It became so compelling it was almost like, How could we not?” says Witterick.
There are days when their decisions are tiring, shackling even. “We spend more time than we should providing explanations for why we do things this way,” says Witterick. “I regret that (Jazz) has to discuss his gender before people ask him meaningful questions about what he does and sees in this world, but I don't think I am responsible for that — the culture that narrowly defines what he should do, wear and look like is.”
Longtime friend Ayal Dinner, 35, a father two young boys, was surprised to hear the couple’s announcement when Storm was born, but is supportive.
“I think it’s amazing that they’re willing to take on challenging people in this way,” says Dinner. “While they are political and ideological about these things, they’re also really thinking about what it means and struggling with it as they go along.”
Dinner understands why people may find it extreme. “Although I can see the criticism of ‘This is going to be hard on my kid,’ it’s great to say, ‘I love my kid for whoever they are.’”
On a recent trip to Hamilton, Jazz was out of earshot when family friend Denise Hansen overheard two little girls at the park say they didn’t want to play with a “girl-boy.” Then, there was the time a saleswoman at a second-hand shop refused to sell him a pink feather boa. “Surely you won't buy it for him — he's a boy!” said the woman. Shocked, and not wanting to upset Jazz, Witterick left the store.
Parents talk about the moment they realize they would throw themselves in front of a speeding truck to save their child from harm, yet battle the instinct to overprotect. They want to encourage independence. They hope people won’t be mean. They pray they aren’t bullied. No parent would ever wish that for their child.
On a night after she watched her husband of 11 years and the boys play with sparklers after dark, Witterick, in a reflective mood, writes to say we are all mocked at some point for the way we look, the way we dress and the way we think.
“When faced with inevitable judgment by others, which child stands tall (and sticks up for others) — the one facing teasing despite desperately trying to fit in, or the one with a strong sense of self and at least two 'go-to' adults who love them unconditionally? Well, I guess you know which one we choose.”
*
Diane Ehrensaft is a California-based psychologist and mother of Jesse, a “girlyboy” who turned his trucks into cradles and preferred porcelain dolls over soldiers when he was a child. Her newly published book, Gender Born, Gender Made, is a guide for parents of nonconforming kids.
She believes parents should support gender-creative children, which includes the transgendered, who feel born in the wrong bodies, and gender hybrids, who feel they are part girl and part boy. Then there are gender “smoothies,” who have a blended sense of gender that is purely “them.”
Ehrensaft believes there is something innate about gender, and points to the ’70s, when parents experimented by giving dolls to boys and trucks to girls.
“It only worked up to a certain extent. Some girls never played with the trucks, some boys weren’t interested in ballet ... It was a humbling experiment for us because we learned we don’t have the control that we thought we did.”
But she worries by not divulging Storm’s sex, the parents are denying the child a way to position himself or herself in a world where you are either male, female or in between. In effect they have created another category: Other than other. And that could marginalize the child.
“I believe that it puts restrictions on this particular baby so that in this culture this baby will be a singular person who is not being given an opportunity to find their true gender self, based on also what’s inside them.”
Ehrensaft gets the “What the heck?!” reaction people may have when they hear about Storm. “I think it probably makes people feel played with to have that information withheld from them.”
While she accepts and supports Jazz’s freedom “to be who he is,” she’s concerned about asking two small boys to keep a secret about the baby of the family. “For very young children, just in their brains, they’re not ready to do the kind of sophisticated discernment we do about when a secret is necessary.”
Jazz says it’s not difficult. He usually just calls the baby Storm.
Dr. Ken Zucker, considered a world expert on gender identity and head of the gender identity service for children at Toronto’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, calls this a “social experiment of nurture.” The broader question, he says, is how much influence parents have on their kids. If Ehrensaft leans toward nature, Zucker puts more emphasis on nurture. Even when parents don’t make a choice, that’s still a choice, and one that can impact the children.
When asked what psychological harm, if any, could come from keeping the sex of a child secret, Zucker said: “One will find out.”
The couple plan to keep Storm’s sex a secret as long as Storm, Kio and Jazz are comfortable with it. In the meantime, philosophy and reality continue to collide.
Out with the kids all day, Witterick doesn’t have the time or the will to hide in a closet every time she changes Storm’s diaper. “If (people) want to peek, that’s their journey,” she says.
There are questions about which bathroom Storm will use, but that is a couple of years off. Then there is the “tyranny of pronouns,” as they call it. They considered referring to Storm as “Z”. Witterick now calls the baby she, imagining the “s” in brackets.
For the moment, it feels right.
“Everyone keeps asking us, ‘When will this end?’” says Witterick. “And we always turn the question back. Yeah, when will this end? When will we live in a world where people can make choices to be whoever they are?”