Guest blogger time!

From Adrienne

Sometimes, I'm not sure what to think about the society that I live in.

My state, Nebraska, has recently come into nationwide focus because of a law that came into effect in September-- The Safe Haven Law. This law states that people can bring their child and leave them at a hospital or with an on duty firefighter and not be prosecuted by law.

Nebraska is, obviously, a very conservative state. Currently, we have what is legally referred to as an 'unenforceable' abortion ban. Every Saturday I drive by a HUGE protest in front of the Planned Parenthood in my town. My sister and I used to entertain ourselves by flipping them off while we drove by, and once I escorted a terrified woman (who was not even there for an abortion or to ask about one) across the picket line so that she could get an exam done. When we passed the safe haven law, I was so proud of the state. I thought, finally, someone wants to provide an answer for women who want an abortion and cannot obtain one.

What is controversial about the law is that there is no age limit. While lawmakers have stated that it is intended for infants, to prevent babies being born in dumpsters, they left no age limit on the law so that any parent could leave their child here.

If you've been following the stories on the news, you can see what a predicament my state is now in. Over thirty children have been left here since the law came into effect in September, some from out of state. One father dropped off nine children (after his wife died and he was laid off from his job).

As an early childhood professional, it makes me sick to my stomach to think about children being abandoned by their parents. As a citizen, even as a liberal, I have to admit that it is upsetting that parents are using the safe haven act, even more so that so many have utilized the law-- and even MORE so that parents from out of the state have used the law.

However, the law was created for a reason. The law was created so that parents could leave their children rather than harming them-- and now we are upset because the law is doing exactly what it was intended for.

Yesterday I was reading an article about a woman who became the guardian to a 16 month old when his homeless mother literally put the child in her arms and then walked away. Now he is five, and suffering from an emotional disorder so severe that his guardians literally fear for their lives. She has sought help through the proper channels, got therapy, put him on medication, and, finally, looked for full-time care with an institution. But the wait list for a quality institution was 6 months at the least. So, she bought plane tickets and brought him to Nebraska, where she dropped him off at a hospital. In the article, she says that she just wanted him to get help, and this was the only way she could think of to get him help right NOW. "If it works out," She says, "I'd like to have him back."

THAT is the real travesty. The fact that it takes more than six months for a CHILD to receive necessary mental health care is morally reprehensible in this society. THAT is what we should be focusing on, NOT on repealing a law that has brought into light so many of the holes in our social services system.

It breaks my heart that children are being abandoned. I work for a child care center that exists through a grant that provides day care and living expenses for single moms. The majority of the children I interact with every day are children who were born to teenage mothers. Every single day I see parents whose lives would have been SO much easier had they had an abortion or found some way to abandon their child-- and yet they keep them, they struggle, and they make it through. Sometimes with public assistance, sometimes without. So when the public in my ridiculously conservative state says that people should understand the choice inherent behind creating a child, and the responsibility that comes with having one, I get it. I absolutely GET it. These women chose a hard road for themselves AND for their children, and I admire every single one of them for it. The goal of social services is to keep families together, and as functional as possible (if any of you grew up in a functional family, let me know).

I was so proud of my state for passing this law. Passing this law, to me, meant that Nebraska was tired of being heartbroken every time they read about a baby left in a dumpster, or a child locked in a closet, or starved to death. To me, it meant that while we are, as a whole, an anti-abortion state, we were willing to provide a choice to women that does not include a dark alley/rusty hanger, or forced motherhood.

I was so proud of the state for saying that we would be the brave light shining in the darkness for these children-- NOT for the parents-- who have so few choices, so little help, and-- obviously-- no one they can count on.

But now the public cries out that these children are not our responsibility-- that it isn't fair for us to shoulder the cost of these children. Some parents have said they abandon their children because of severe behavioral issues, and others, I'm sure, just because they didn't want to have their kids anymore. That was bound to happen. In any case-- I thank God that these children are no longer in their parent/guardians hands, even if just for a brief reprieve to get the help that they need in order to make their families functional. I pray for the lawmakers who face the decision to repeal a law that we-- obviously-- so desperately need. What would have become of these thirty-odd children without the safe haven law? Would we rather open the World Herald and read that 34 children had been starved, neglected, abused, since September?

Luke 9:48: "Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me, because the one who is least among all of you is the one who is greatest."

I Do - but I have a really good excuse

A commentary on marriage and feminism
by guest blogger Adrienne

Recently, I became engaged. After a life time of basically eschewing marriage and four years of blatantly telling my partner that I was not interested in creating a legal union with him, he proposed to me on a snowy March morning and I accepted, cried, giggled, and put my arms around the man who I am hoping will be the only man that I ever accept a proposal from.

I've never thought very highly of marriage—even as a young girl, before I could have really considered myself a feminist—I didn't really think it was that good of an idea. That is probably due, at least in part, to the volatile example that I had from my own parents, who have been married for 30 years and love/hate each other fiercely, every day that I've known them. Once, when my partner and I were fighting, my dad gave him this advice: "Here is how I've stayed married for 30 years. When she tells you to get the hell out, don't."

It isn't really that I had any thoughts that I would be single for my entire life. I thought that eventually, at some point, I would probably settle down in a monogamous relationship with someone—it just so happens that my partner turned out to be a man, I think to a lot of people's surprise and maybe a little bit my own—which is one reason that I never thought I'd be getting married. As someone who identifies strongly with the LGBT community, I didn't want to participate or patronize an industry that is exclusive to heteros. Although, I did giggle at the very non-PC comment made by Dolly Parton, who said that we should legalize gay marriage so that they can go through hell along with the rest of us.

Likewise, I don't really understand what a wedding is for. The image of the triumphant bride and the defeated groom doesn't do anything for me.

Like, "Whee—lookit! Trapped him!" While the groom shuffles his feet nervously and goes out binge drinking with his buddies 'ONE LAST TIME' (as if after we get married I am going to lock him up in our basement) and asking strippers for marital advice. How could I possibly funnel all my energy and excitement into the ultimate goal of, as an ex-virgin, wearing a white dress, surrounded by my ladies-in-waiting, all giggly and holding their overpriced calla lilies to symbolize virtue while I get married to the man I've been living with—in open sin—off and on for the last four years? What is there to look for post-wedding? Then I can funnel all my energy into being a brood mare and putting my career aspirations on hold in order to push out babies? Crude, maybe, but come on. The minute we step off the plane from the honeymoon everyone's going to be asking when we're having babies. Not bloody soon.

And, ergo—what is a MARRIAGE for? At times I find myself staring down the next 50 years of my life, living up to expectations of what a 'wife' is supposed to do, like have dinner ready at 6 and drive the kids to and from soccer practice and help them with their homework while Hubby watches sport center in the next room, being blamed for any inadequacies in my children or husband's appearance, grooming, and nutrition—I've even seen women blame each other for how RUDE their husband is-- constantly explaining that yes, I am married, and yes, I kept my maiden name, yes my husband is okay with that and no, I didn't really have to convince him.

Not to mention the guilty pleasure of NOT and daring other feminists to try to vote me off the island (which WILL happen once I'm married, for some).

Sometimes I feel like feminism is just an endless pissing contest—who can outdo the others dedication to 'the cause.' By getting married, what am I saying to 'the movement'? Am I setting back years of women's lib by wanting to be pampered for a day and spending an obscene amount of money on it? Am I setting it back any more than I do accidentally every other day of my life, but randomly doing or not doing things that I don't see as being significant until I find out later that, indeed, they were? Yuck. The only problem with feminism is feminists. Sometimes it seems like no matter what I do I'm setting back the movement in some way.

So now why, after all that, have I decided to go ahead and get married?

Well… I guess I don't really have one good excuse, I have a lot of bad ones that I

can hold up to make at least a flimsy one.
My partner really wanted to. He felt that it was important for financial reasons and that it would streamline the process of buying cars, buying houses, getting loans, etc. If something should happen to him, or me, where would death benefits end up if we don't have any kids? I get way better health insurance at my job than he does, but I can't put him on mine until we're married. Guiltily, we both knew that our parents—and more so, our respective grandparents to whom we are both very close—wanted us to. The general feeling about marriage is one of security and (iffy) permanence.

But, mostly, it was important to him that our children have the security of knowing that their parents fell in love with each other and married for love, and that children came later. He felt that if we didn't get married, our kids might always wonder if we were going to break up. My dad, always with his wit and wisdom, agreed, saying that if they hadn't been married, it would have been much easier to break up. A divorce—even though it is getting easier and easier these days to obtain—is so much messier than two cohabitants just walking away from each other.

And, at the end of the day, I found my soul mate. I don't feel like I need to marry him, or like he will leave me if I don't, or that I will be viewed as a loose woman if I don't. I don't feel like marrying him is going to set me up to be on easy street, or that marrying him will mean that something about my status in this world will dramatically change (in fact, we're still planning on splitting our house with roommates until we have kids. Pays the mortgage MUCH easier).

I decided to look at the wedding and marriage more as a party, and less as a ceremony, more as my partner and I wanting our friends and family to be a part of our journey and to know that they are part of our relationship and part of the reason that we love each other. We don't want to be the focus at our wedding, we want it to be a communal gathering of people that are important to us so that we can all meet and hang out. We want the 'marriage' to be more a statement of commitment than a legal bonding union—which we know is just semantics, but it changed how I viewed the wedding and marriage.

I admit, I am incredibly lucky to have a partner who I truly feel that if I had held out and said that we were never getting married, would have gone on cohabitating with me until the end of our days. And I'm even more lucky that he could care less about what traditions we choose to uphold at our ceremony, and/or marriage.

As I've said on numerous occasions, feminism is all about choices. CHOICE is the ultimate trump card to be used in every discussion of feminism: I do-because I can. I live in a time and place where, because of the movement, I can choose to get married or not too, I can choose to have children and have them keep my name or take his, he can take my name if he wants to. It isn't setting back the movement if I feel, truly, in the bottom of my heart that it is MY choice.

Pro Choice does NOT equal Pro-Abortion

Or: The Idiocy of Polar Politics
by Guest Blogger Adrienne


Reader beware: I am not the kind of writer who uses a lot of statistics to jazz up my articles. Partially because statistics can be skewed any way you need them to be, but mainly because when you're talking about something as emotional and personal as abortion, I don't want to sit down and look at a page of numbers to tell you what my gut says. When you go searching for statistics, I'd wager that you are really just looking for the ones that will support the claim that you all ready know is 'right'.

Recently, someone very close to me found out she was pregnant. I was shocked when she told me, and after the preliminary congratulations, I asked her how it happened. Obviously I know how babies are made, but it turns out that she was just as shocked as me. She quoted a Friends episode and said, "Sometimes everyone can wear everything that they're supposed to, and it still just happens."

The other day I was watching True Life on MTV, and a 17 year old girl was saying that her boyfriend told her that because he smoked marijuana he had a low sperm count and couldn't get her pregnant. As she was talking, she rested her long fingers on her round belly, a crib in the background. "I don't understand it," She said. "We had been having sex for like, a year and half, and I didn't get pregnant. Why this time?"

I was educated in America (like both of those women and their lovers). One day in ninth grade we were told to read Chapter 11 in our Health book and that there would be a quiz later. The chapter was about ten pages long, briefly discussed the parts of the male and female genitalia and how they are used in baby-making (because that's all sex really is, right?) and then went on to discuss what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy and how birth happens. There was no quiz, there was no class discussion, no question and answer period, no note-taking, etc.

I still remember when I was a sophomore in high school one of my friends (who was a college freshman) asked me if you could get pregnant if he ejaculated on her stomach. Another guy friend who was my age asked me once if he could get a girl pregnant from 69. I remember reading an article once that said that a girl got pregnant from swimming in a pond where a boy had masturbated.

And of course, I went through the discussion that every girl in her adolescence has with at least one of her friends: you know, the 'did we, or didn't we?' talk, the 'am I still a virgin?' talk, the 'just the tip, just for a second' talk. It's pretty clear, to me at least, that abstinence only, or the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on sex education is not working.

What does that have to do with abortion? Oh, only everything. If these kids aren't clear on how they can get pregnant, and aren't clear on what ACTUAL ways they can avoid pregnancy if they are being sexually active (or if they will become sexually active), then how could that be deemed 'CHOICE'?

When children (you know, like Jaime Lynn Spears) are bombarded with sexual messages on every commercial, billboard, tv show, etc, are pressured by their friends, are not given guidance from their parents except 'don't do it,' aren't receiving any education from their schools, and are trying to control their own raging hormones and curiosity, how can that be deemed 'CHOICE'?

To be pro-life and to rally for making contraceptives even more difficult to obtain is a conflict of interest. The sad truth is that young people are having sex at alarming rates—it's true. A hundred years ago, we would have all been married by age 16 anyway, so its no surprise that puberty is when most children get curious about sex—and that was before we had sex being sold to us at every turn.

Adoption is a beautiful option. I wish that every woman who was experiencing an unplanned pregnancy felt that adoption was the right choice—but it just isn't so. There are MILLIONS of women who for very practical reasons can't see how adoption would work for them. Women that have AIDS, women that have cancer, women that have MS or some other debilitating disease; women in abusive relationships, women with Down's syndrome, women who are victims of incest or spousal rape, women who are eleven, just to name a few.

And okay, fine, yes. There are probably a handful of women that have abortions because they had sex, they got pregnant, they don't want a baby. Some of them may not use contraceptive for no other reason than that they are careless. Some of them may have had three, or fourteen, abortions (although I don't think that is likely). And keeping abortion legal means enabling these women to continue to have abortions, whether or not the American public think that it is right. There are always going to be people who take advantage. And the BEST thing we can do to combat that is to empower them with the education on how to NOT get pregnant, and empower them with knowledge on why they are getting pregnant in the first place (for example: are they looking for love in all the wrong places? Do they have a sex addiction? Etc)

And guess what? If all you pro-lifers are right and these women are going to burn in hell for what they've done, that's going to happen whether or not you tell them so, isn't it? Telling doctors to stop playing God by performing abortions is hypocritical—YOU should stop playing God by judging people. Just be smug, smile, and rest confidently on your knowledge that they are going to be worm food someday and you will be a harpist (and let God judge you by what you're thinking, rather than letting people like me judge you for what you are saying).

Of all the pro-choicers I know, I have never met a single one who wants abortion to increase. In all our pro-choice discussions (you know, after we get done burning our bras and drinking bat blood), no one has ever said to me, "Did you hear abortion rates are up in South Carolina! Whoo hoo! Pass me the placenta chips!"

Likewise, the general consensus of every discussion I've had with a pro-lifer is that they want abortion rates to go down, or stop all together. And, USUALLY, they don't REALLY want the pregnant women to be stoned to death. (I have heard the 'she should take responsibility for her actions and deal with the consequences' rhetoric, to which I always wonder how a baby that is born as a 'consequence' will fare down the road, but that's neither here nor there).

I think, at the core of the issue, most people on either side just want abortion to stop (or to be a LAST LAST LAST case resort). So then why isn't there more outreach from both camps to figure out some kind of happy medium that can accomplish that goal? Why isn't there legislation trying to give everyone a little of what they want—requiring that pharmacists must fill birth control prescriptions and requiring that abortions have a longer waiting period? Or something? Why has no one from either side of the issue tried to extend an olive branch to find some way to meet in the middle?

Abortion, like the death penalty, war, and religion, is a polarizing issue. It's true. It is one of those things that almost everyone has a dead-set opinion on that they just can't budge on; which, by the way, is the definition of narrow-mindedness (shame on us all).

As a pro-choicer, I don't like the idea of a girl in high school or junior high needing parental permission to get contraceptives. I know that at that age I would have NEVER gone to my parents to ask for contraceptive. But it's a bargaining chip I am willing to toss up if it means that we can have REAL sex education classes in our schools (which, btw, might lessen the need for these young girls to have contraceptives in the first place AND make them more likely to talk to their parents about it). I don't want to see legislation that mandates there to be a 48 hour waiting period before any abortion, but I'm willing to trade that for legalized abortions in every state, for all women, in all circumstances.

I believe, fully, that this world and this nation NEED extremists. We need the people all the way on the left that are anti-war, pro-universal health care, pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, and we need the people all the way on the right that are pro-life, pro-tax cuts, pro-war, pro-religion in our schools. We need those people because without them, the people in the middle would just look at each other and shrug.

But what we ALSO need is for those people in the middle to start stepping up and saying what THEY want to see happen. The vast majority of this country agrees on so many issues— none of us want to see religious extremists becoming suicide bombers. No one wants to see senior citizens going without their prescriptions. No one wants to see more soldiers dying in Iraq, or anywhere else. NO ONE wants to see abortion numbers sky rocket. No one, no matter what their voter registration card says, or what terms they use to describe themselves, really wants to see their neighbors suffer.

So stop putting comments under our pro-choice articles that call us selfish and disgusting. Stop calling me a slut. Stop hiding behind Biblical rhetoric (being an atheist is not illegal), and stop telling us to keep our legs crossed and our heads down. In return, we'll stop calling you outdated and bigoted. We'll stop telling you to get bent and that we can't believe you have sex at all. You can't fight fire with fire.

Throw yourself a pity party tonight, eat some ice cream, call us all sluts and cunts one more time, and when you wake up tomorrow morning, be ready to come to work. Actually THINK about what you want to see happen, and think about what you're willing to do to get it. ASK a pro-choicer what they want, too. Build bridges. Find the road that separates you and walk down it together.

You can still call me a hippie. That's allowed.

Punishing young women for sex: the Jamie Lynn Spears edition

Breaking News: In the United States it is STILL not illegal to be pregnant!!!
By Guest Blogger, Adrienne

Okay.

Two months ago, Jamie Lynn Spears was not only a teen star on a popular Nickelodeon show, she was also (ALAS, NO!!!) having sex. Two months ago, Jamie Lynn Spears was not registering a blip on the gossip—or conservative—radar, EVEN THOUGH she was engaged in a sexual relationship with her boyfriend.

Now, SUDDENLY, because there is EVIDENCE of that sexual relationship, she is a 'slut,' she has 'loose morals,' and, randomly, she's also a 'role model.' Funny, but I don't think I ever heard Jamie Lynn Spears referred to as a role model even once before all of this happened (and, just so you know, I think that choosing Jamie Lynn Spears as a role model for your child is ludicrous, regardless of her sexual choices). Moms are yanking their tween daughters from the living room because they don't want their daughters to catch the sex bug from the TV waves (first of all, AS IF Nickelodeon is going to shoot a show about Zoey being pregnant. Give me a break. If you moms weren't making such a big deal about it, your tweenagers would have no idea that it was happening. Promise.)

I'd like us all to engage in a little exercise. Raise your hand if you were a virgin at sixteen. Seriously. Last week I engaged in a conversation with some people who were so angry about Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy, saying that she was a role model with obviously loose morals. I just sat looking at them in shock—I knew for a fact that every single one of them (except for me—so there!) was having sex at 16. They just didn't get pregnant. So I asked them the same question I'd like to pose here:

Which headline would you rather read: "Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant at 16" or "Jamie Lynn Spears has an abortion at 16."

Obviously I am pro-choice. It is not illegal for Jamie Lynn to get an abortion with parental consent—how easy would it have been for her to just say, "Oh, I'm going to take a little break and go spend some time abroad" and get rid of the baby? HOW BRAVE for her to stand up and announce that she's pregnant and keeping it, knowing full well what it would do to her reputation and her career. But you don't hear anyone towing that line—just people being pissed that she's pregnant. Well guess what? What's done is done. Crabbing about it won't make her less pregnant.

I am also not for punishing celebrities for doing the same things that everyone is doing. When I said that to a friend last week, he said, "But don't they get paid a lot of money? Then it kind of comes with the territory doesn't it."

How lame. I am a teacher, I make just above minimum wage. My best friend works at a hospital and makes considerably more money. So, if I came out of the closet, would it be less controversial than if she did? Should every choice she makes be broadcast on a larger scale than mine because her paycheck is better?

While I'm at it: I am in a traditional 'role model' position—does it affect society more if I were to get pregnant out of wedlock than if the clerk at Shopko does?

I suppose that because we aren't stoning Jamie Lynn Spears in the town square it's telling your children that you condone teen pregnancy.

And, not to mention, would a male tween star be getting the same kind of flack for getting his girlfriend pregnant? Uh, no. Most likely they would say it wasn't theirs, call the girl a slut and a hoe bag, and quietly settle to pay her off. Take the money and say that this baby is not mine, that's the best you're going to get. Thank God we have the science to prove paternity, and I pray that if it ever happens that girl is smart enough and strong enough to demand a test before taking a settlement.

Come on people. It is such a conflicted point of view to say that she should have been 'responsible' when she was engaged in an activity that most kids her age are. I think it's fair to be disappointed, but at the end of the day if you're going to assign blame for something that has nothing to do with you, maybe you can start with yourself. What did YOU personally do to make sure that Jamie Lynn Spears was armed with the knowledge to protect herself, or the confidence to say no? What have you done today to make sure that other teen stars don't go down this same road—beside telling your daughter that she can't watch Zoey 101 anymore, even though the story line, script, setting, etc, will not change whatsoever?

At least, there are three great things that will come out of this. Jamie Lynn has the means to provide very well for her child, so this will not be another baby born into poverty, crime, drugs, etc. Secondly, maybe tween girls will stop watching so much tv all together. It would be fantastic if some actual role models could be chosen for girls—not to mention, less TV might actually mean that the sex bug WON'T infect your child from the millions of commercials and other TV shows that are trashy.

Thirdly, it would be fantastic if this could start a conversation. Ask your thirteen year old if her friends are having sex—but it might surprise you. Ask your teenage son about his friends. Talk about some options to replace intercourse. Talk about the consequences of sex (and no, pregnancy is not the worst one, just the most visible).


CLICK HERE to read Tobes' take on the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy story, published at the blog, Planned Parenthood advocate.

Man alive, just WHAT are we going to do with kids these days!

via fabulous guest blogger Adrienne

I mean, they are just so spoiled. Parents are off working long… long…. Long days… sometimes not even getting home in time to have dinner with their children—what a sacrifice for mom and dad to make! Parents are working SO hard in order to make sure that their kids don't have to go through what they did: teasing over un-cool clothes or not having the world's best and most cutting edge STUFF. A High Def flat screen runs for $800, it could take a kid months mowing lawns to earn that kind of dough. So what are we to do? We have to work.

And now these girls in Maine and ALL OVER THE COUNTRY have the audacity to make an adult decision and start having sex—and then an even BIGGER decision by wanting access to birth control? Well pshaw! Who do these girls think they are—where are they learning this behavior? Got to be the liberal media, right? Those loud mouth feminists—those are the ones who are causing all the trouble, advocating for abortions and putting birth control pills into our daughter's hands when they should be at home, on the couch, watching TV like a normal 11 year old! Not having sex!

After all, I had to pull a double shift to get them that High Def flat screen TV so that they could watch their favorite program: That 70s Show. Watch this clip of Eric and Donna, a true love story for our times. That Jacque is a regular run of the mill hoochie, but DONNA… now THERE is a role model that I'm glad my girls have.



YAY!!! I mean… wait a minute. Is that how that was supposed to go? Donna…. STAYED? She gave up her dream of traveling the world, with our without Eric, and decided to stay… put her life on hold…. Just to stay with Eric?

Well okay. Maybe my 11-year-old shouldn't be watching That 70s show anyway. When I get home I'll have them show me how to program the V-Chip.

Here we go. Here's something that is a little more age appropriate, Beauty and the Beast. What little girl doesn't want to be a princess? That's what it really comes down to, right? Acting like a lady means that boys will respect you and treat you like a queen.

Belle is really the kind of girl that I would want to be friends with. What a good head on her shoulders. Look at that—making such a sacrifice for her Dad, and you just know how it will turn out. The Beast will throw her in a dungeon—well he has to, at first, right?—Then he will ask her on a date. That's nice of him, a really good gesture. And since Belle is such a lady, she will certainly be gracious—well, now wait a minute. Okay, okay… Belle surely you can say no, just for tonight. You're upset and you miss your Dad, that's okay. You can have tonight to pout, I'm sure the Beast will understand…. Right?

Hey, wait a minute. Is Belle trying to escape? And the Beast is going after her… to SAVE her, right? Well every woman needs a strong man to protect her, after all. Well she could have never made it on her own, she's just lucky that the Beast was willing to take her back. Well the details don't matter. What matters is the moral of the story: If you love someone enough, even if they abuse you, imprison you, and intimidate you, if you just stick by their side, eventually they will turn into a prince.

Wait. Is that what I want my daughter to think?

Fine, we'll put in Mulan. There's a good show with a STRONG female character—no sex in this film. See, there you go. Mulan wins the war, gets the blessing of the emperor and goes home to pay respects to her father. See how proud they are? No sex references. I'll just turn this off… oh wait. What was that, Granny? You aren't so hot on her bringing home a sword, you would have rather that she brought home a man?

But…. Can't it just be a movie about Mulan saving the country? Is that not enough? She needs to do all of that on high heels with perfect make up and hair?

Wow. Maybe if I were more in touch with what was actually parenting my child—the TV, the media, and other CHILDREN—I would understand why they are becoming sexually active… why they are getting pregnant… and why they feel they need birth control.

F***ing Brilliant

In my last post, I wrote about this billboard. The discussion has sparked an interesting debate with remarks such as "women bring this on themselves."

Well a comment from Adrienne was so well written that I have decided to give it a proper place as its own post. To read comments leading up to this answer, click here.

Adrienne states:

Although I hate giving this answer, it is absolutely true: if you were a woman, you would totally get the whole 'objectification of women' problem. Imagine your wife having to go out in a skimpy tank top and boy shorts with an impending wedgie in order to get a fair deal at a car dealership. If the thought makes you uncomfortable, imagine how we feel-- especially if you do not, for whatever reason, fulfill that sexual stereotype. Is it fair for me to walk into a store and not get service, while my five foot one hundred and ten pound sister gets helped immediately? Call it human nature, and I'll buy it, but that doesn't make it right. My money is as good as anyone's, so is my time, and-- attention please-- so is my body. Same parts, same functions. In fact, I may even use some of my parts better than others.

Admittedly, the problem is, at times, stemming from women. I've commented on this before on this site. But lets examine that, shall we? In my experience-- as a woman-- women who pull me down because of my appearance do so because of some insecurity of their own. Why? Because we all see each other as competition. The fact that the sexual stereotypes (thou must be skinny, full breasted, with long blonde hair and ruby red lips) perpetuate in our heads is not our fault (even if it is our problem).

Looking at things from a generational stand point, let us take a small look at the women who we gained most of our insight from: Our Mothers. Our mothers, who were raised watching TV shows where girls were told that being a woman was better because it meant less responsibility and decision making. Mothers who took high school courses on making perfect roasts and how to fold napkins, while the boys learned accounting and managerial skills.

And, above all else, mothers who were taught by THEIR mothers that they needed to be a certain sexual stereotype in order to snag a bread winner for their empty little heads. It's no secret that since the beginning of time men have been choosing women based solely on their looks: if she's a virgin and she's beautiful, then she's worth every penny of the bride price. If she's 'soiled,' or ugly, then she better come with an awesome dowry. You may think times have changed, but the women of my generation-- when both eating disorders and teenage sexuality are at an all time high-- know differently.

Again, the fact that the stereotype perpetuates is not our fault, even if it is our problem.

The stereotype stems from, was created by, men. I have actually been broken up with because I am overweight. I have lost roles in musicals because I do not fulfill the 'romantic lead' appearance. I have been overlooked for PR positions because I don't have a 'public face' (look at the number one college major for beauty queens: communications).

The problem with this billboard is that it is selling sex. What a tired, overdone marketing ploy. This billboard tells me nothing about the radio station except that it is run by men, for men, who are willing to exploit and objectify women in order to get more listeners (read: money). What kind of music do they play? Soft core porn?

The question is: where do we draw the line? At what point have we crossed it? What negative outcomes could possibly outweigh the gains of this billboard?

Will all the teenage girls with eating disorders, trying desperately to look like this bill board please raise their hands? Continue raising them if you have also purchased ridiculously promiscuous clothes in an attempt to attract attention to your pubescent body?

And, PS-- it doesn't make much sense to have sex so blatantly on display for all to see and then to make contraceptives and abortion illegal. Just saying.



****

WELL DONE SISTER. Truly couldn't have said it better myself