the whole mess of religion and birth control

Someone on Twitter (shout out @ThortsMagorts!) asked me recently for a post on birth control and religion and what all the fuss is about. If birth control violates your religion, why don't you just not take it? Which, frankly, is a great question.

source

It's complicated.

Most religious people generally are sane folks who don't meddle too much in people's personal affairs. But a fair share of them seek ways to limit women's access to abortion and birth control. There's arguments about the sanctity of life and not trying to act like God by controlling the number and timing of children (like the Duggars, from 19 and Counting or whatever number of kids they're up to now).

But often it's about controlling women and their bodies and their choices. With the recent provisions of the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are required to cover contraception with no co-pays for the women whose health care they are covering. Even employers with a religious lean. Which some people are pretty upset about, because unfortunately self-righteousness means that religious people think they know what's best for everyone and want to extend their religion to EVERYBODY.

The law actually leaves quite a bit of space for religious freedom--of individuals, not of businesses since businesses are not people. If a woman does not want contraception to be covered by her insurance company or employer, she won't buy it or ask them to cover it. Boom. Done. Sounds like religious freedom to me.

Do you think that employers/insurance companies should have to cover birth control? 

Much love,
The Sheriff

friday links

I love this list: Is Your Relationship Normal?

Yes.

Ever wonder what kind of woman would get a late-term abortion? Check this out.


I love everything about this: the upside of ugly, and why we shouldn't teach girls that being beautiful is a worthy goal.


Not necessarily about fornicating or feminism, but interesting: what foreigners think of America.


Much love,
The Sheriff

PS--follow us on Twitter!  Or Facebook!

Leave Lolo Jones Alone

The New York Times featured an article on Saturday written by Jere Longman entitled "For Lolo Jones, Everything Is Image." Longman basically kinda roasts Lolo, as you could probably guess from the title, and claims that she's basically just a bunch of image and sexy acting but without any athletic achievement to back it up.

Hold on, boy.

I am not a fan of Lolo. Or the Olympics in general. It's fascinating, in a vague kind of way, like how I feel about the fact that it is possible to buy skin cream that costs over $100 an ounce. But I don't like how this guy seems to be unfairly targeting her (a woman of color) for doing something that ALL athletes do (creating an image and having endorsements). You think Ryan Lochte is just naturally that much of a frat boy (...well, maybe)?

The fact that he takes issue with how she portrays herself as "vixen, virgin, victim" is especially irksome. Vixen? She's a vixen for posing for nude photos (which were pretty tasteful, by the way)? Na, I don't buy it. Dozens of female athletes are oversexualized and their bodies fetishized not for their skill or talent but for their taut muscles. Jones is no different. As for her virginity, she's open about it and how it impacts her dating life. Marketing strategy? Perhaps. But by talking it up, the media is only helping her to work it harder. As for her being a victim, she has mentioned her hard childhood in interviews (poor, father was in and out of jail, moved around a lot, lived in the basement of a Salvation Army). But having watched some of them, it hardly seems like she's playing up her victimhood. She's telling her story, openly. She's not begging for a handout, just stating the facts of her life.

And why is she getting so much attention? Because last time she participated in the Olympics, she was in the lead and on the way to a goal when she tripped on a hurdle, and then cried on the track. This is the perfect setup for a redemption based comeback story for her, so of course there's more focus on her than the other track and field athletes. Also? This is America. Not many folks care about track and field.  We can focus on one, maybe two athletes for each sport.

What do you think? Is he right to critique her for being all style, no substance?

Much love,
The Sheriff


PS--follow me on Twitter!
PPS--for a humorous take on the oversexualization of female athletes, check this out: sports photographed the same way they do to volleyball.

Friday Links!

I don't really give a hoot about the Olympics, but this is pretty damn great.

How to deal with "pretty sister syndrome" in the office.

Taking back the "F" word from CampusFeminist.

This is a fantastic article about the risks and rewards that female journalists face.

Why it's hard for men to say bye bye to their bachelor status. I have some feelings about this one.

Thanks to the economy, the U.S. birth rate has fallen dramatically. Interesting to think about the implications for that.

Much love,
The Sheriff

PS--follow us on Twitter!  Or Facebook!

gym membership guilt

I've got a gym membership, like a good girl in her 20s should. Sweat Fitness in Philly. It's a nice enough gym, not too expensive if they give you the special holiday discounts, and clean. Kinda industrial-cool decor. And I do enjoy working out, using my body, and feeling strong doing it. But I have never felt such guilt as I do each day when I look at my innocent little gym card on my key ring and think how long it's been since I've swiped it on my way in the building. 

There's something just so seemingly good about people who go to the gym regularly. That trim lady with the enviable triceps who is there, every morning, virtuously working her body. The buff guy, staring himself in the mirror while he crunches his obliques. Clearly, these people just have that discipline and are just simply better people than mere mortals like myself, who would often prefer to stay in bed that extra hour or just go home and take off my shoes after a long day on my feet.

The problem here lies in two things: that we attribute being good with going to the gym/being fit and that we use such black and white thinking around fitness and body.

If we don't go to the gym, we are bad, fat, lazy, and likely to get diabetes and die early. If we do go to the gym, we are thin, light, virtuous, good people. It's one or the other The fitspo on Pinterest (ya know the ones: pictures of  disembodied taught abs with words like "Sweat is fat crying"  and "Train insane or remain the same" that are supposed to inspire you towards fitness) does nothing but promote this black and white thinking--either you are working towards improving your body and hitting the gym, or you're a lazy slob with a muffin top. Staying wrapped up in such self-promoted guilt makes it easy for women to be exploited or distracted from real issues or just enjoying our lives.

So do your best to do what feels good for you, whether that's a strict gym routine or a more relaxed approach to fitness. When the black and white thinking and guilt creep in, remind yourself that fitness is not a measure of your inherent goodness and that you are already enough, dusty gym membership and all.

Much love,
The Sheriff

PS--follow us on Twitter!  Or Facebook!

chris brown, homophobia, & hypermasculinity; or, why chris brown is such a douchebag

Once again, Chris Brown has showed the world what a nice young man he is. Reportedly, when a journalist asked him on his way out of da club what he thought of Frank Ocean's recent revelation of his bisexuality, Brown's response was (allegedly), "Man, no homo."

Cuuuuute.

Of course, Brown is denying it and taking to his favorite platform of Twitter to do so. But whether he made this specific homophobic comment is sort of beside the point, since he evidently has a history of doing so (sidebar: he also has a history of pretty terrible lyrics in his songs lately with dubious, grandiose claims, including the song "Sweet Love," wherein he croons "Tonight is the night/That I change your life/Let me control your body." Change my life by controlling my body? I'm good, Chris Brown. I'm good).

So. Why is Brown such an asshole?

Well, I can't account for why he beat the living crap out of Rihanna, but as for his homophobia, I've got a good idea. It's because of hyper-masculinity and in particular how important it is within the black community.

If being a man is defined as being the aggressor, the breadwinner, the One Who Handles Business, than the act of allowing oneself to be penetrated by another man (like a lowly woman! gasp!) is perhaps the lowest you can get (hence the term "down low" for the sexual switch that sometimes happens in prisons). An emphasis on these traditional values also explains Brown's ridiculous behavior generally (like when he continues to respond excessively in Twitter fights instead of just laying down like he should), as does looking at him with a lens for misogyny. Sure, he sings sappy songs and sensual tunes about his love for women('s vaginas), but serious hatred of gay men and the act of gay sex is rooted in a hatred for women and their perceived vulnerability.

What say ya'll? Is Chris Brown a hyper-masculine misogynist, or am I just tossing around big words for the hell of it?

Much love,
The Sheriff

PS--follow us on Twitter!  Or Facebook!

reddit rapists have something to say

I'm gonna be real--I'm not always on the top of the latest, coolest tech-savvy thing. I'm lusting over an iPhone (mostly so I can use the adorable case I bought preemptively), but otherwise, I'm pretty behind on the times. I just got a Twitter about a month ago, people (shameless plug: follow FF here!). And I certainly don't know much about Reddit, but I have seen that infographic that shows it's a pretty male-dominated social media source, about 75% dudes or so. It's the masculine, bro-like balance of Pinterest's wedding boards and craft rooms, I suppose.

Whatever Reddit is, recently there was a thread started on it about sexual assault. Not too unusual, except that it featured the POV of the people doing the raping (warning--that link contains some excerpts that might be triggering or just unsettling).

There were lots of (often gross, misogynistic, creepy) perspectives shared, and a weird level of insight into the way that these men thought about the act. But most of them really just saw it as sex. Not as a power play (though several did mention the fact that men generally have superiod physical strength), not as an act of patriarchy, but as sex. Sex gone awry, perhaps. But sex nonetheless.

I found it startling how a few of them noted that they wanted to rape but couldn't go through with it once they looked the woman in the face; once faced by the fact that this was an actual person that they were about to violate, they stopped. The detail with which they were able to account these incidents was also startling.

But most startling is to be able to read these accounts that confirm, from the rapist's perspective, that rape happens usually not because of a stranger in the bushes with a knife, but generally because of a friend who got too drunk and stopped listening to protests or treating women like people or chose to hear his/her hormones instead of her (perhaps audible, perhaps not) protestations.

We need to have more open conversations about rape, yes. But bigger than that, we need to work to see women as people, truly as people, not as objects for sexual conquest or social advancement. We need to train people to see sex not as a sport or competition, but as an act mutually enjoyed between two people in which consent is actively pronounced through language or the body, not just assumed.

Readers--what do you think of this thread? Can we learn something from it, or is just a chance for rapists to feel better about what they did by knowing they're not alone?

Much love,
The Sheriff