Gender Binaries, Trinaries and the problem of labels...

With literally uncounted thousands of identifiers, why is gender identity given such a prominent place amongst our labels? I am rapidly reaching the place where I am ready to treat my gender the way I do my sexuality - just refusing to identify any which way. On every gender inventory I have taken, I am androgynous, tending towards feminine.

I tend towards a more archetypal male expression of self - but then I was totally socialized with what was almost hyper-masculine role models. I am the ready hand in a crisis, unafraid if a situation requires violence. I am very physical - coming towards a year in school and I still have callouses on my hands. I am typically ignorant of my emotions a lot of the time.

Yet here I am, perfectly capable of filling the momma role, the sensitive lover, the empathetic, nurturing friend. I listen, because I am genuinely interested in what you have to say. I wrap my arms around people in need of compassion without fear or embarrassment. I am extremely introspective and my ignorance of emotions, is mostly founded in my fundamental projection bias, my assumption that most people probably feel like this and it is perfectly normal - i.e. depression is not normal, so that couldn't be something I experience.

So what am I? More importantly, what does it matter? I am not averse to ideas such as genderqueer - alternatives to this supposed gender binary. If pegged, I wouldn't even be averse to identifying as such. Sometimes I am even likely to identify as male, just as sometimes the context of a conversation indicates that I should identify as straight.

To be clear, I am not confused about my gender. I am not considering gender labeling because I am insecure about who and what I am. In reality, this is something I have been thinking about a lot for quite some time, because there are a lot of people who are confused and insecure about it. And there are people who are degraded and stigmatized because of their gender issues, whether they are experiencing gender disphoria, are transgendered, intersexed, androgynous or just happen to characteristically fall more into the realm of the gender that is not their sex.

Then there are people who think the whole discussion is stupid. Who think if you have a penis you're just a guy and if you sport a uterus instead, then you're just a woman. For whom it really is just that simple and the rest is just a load of complete and utter shit. It is because of this group of people, that I am increasingly fucking tired of this need to label.

The notion that this need to preserve one's gender identity is so very intense, that the mere existence of people who don't fit into this male/female dichotomy is a threat to their own gender identity is a sign that we have some very significant problems to overcome. I am all for people exploring or not exploring these concepts, as it suits their desire and comfort levels. But the point at which their desire to avoid any and every perceived threat to their gender and sexual identities interferes with and stigmatizes who and what other people are, I start to get more than a little angry about it.

While the choices I have made in life have certainly influenced who and what I am, I did not choose to have characteristically ambiguous gender traits. I didn't choose to have a general sexual preference for women. I didn't choose to empathize the way I do, listen the way I do, brute my way through discomfort the way I do or take on most of the myriad traits, or labels that make DuWayne Brayton, DuWayne Brayton. I am the sum of my genetics, environment and to some degree the choices I have made.

So are every one of us. Every fucking one.

So what exactly is the threat that my gender identity or the gender identity of anyone else, to the gender identity of anybody else? What threat does one of my labels, pose to one of yours? I am more than a little angry about this, because that perceived threat is used to stigmatize, marginalize and even oppress whole groups of people for characteristics that they cannot control.

So I am not straight, not a man. I am not my sexuality and I am not my sex. I am not even my gender. I am a human person who is sexually attracted to other human people and who shares a lot of characteristics with a lot of other human people. If that makes you uncomfortable, if that makes you feel threatened, please refrain from blaming me. I am not the one of us who has a problem with who they are. It might, however, be a good idea if you sat down to consider exactly why I make you uncomfortable or threatened. It would be a really good idea to think about why that same sex couple, being affectionate in public like any other couple makes you uncomfortable or threatened. It would probably do you a world of good to consider why that women down the block, the one with the addams apple who occasionally still gets that five o'clock shadow makes you feel uncomfortable or threatened.

Because our problem isn't who and what we are. Our problem is you and your destructive fucking stigmas and abuse.

A followup to the "Shower Incident"

I am intrigued by the reaction that this experience has garnered. I am not terribly offended - this is partly my fault for not being more clear about how *I* feel about it and unwittingly making it sound somewhat humorous. But I am not entirely to blame, because there have been two distinct reactions that lend me to think that some people got it.

I actually wrote that post at the coffee shop and ended up relating the experience to some of my friends. I told Juniper about it shortly after it happened. And without fail, the two reactions to this fell solidly along lines of sex. On the one hand, every single woman who heard this initially reacted with a great deal of laughter. Not some - not most - every single one of them. On the other hand, every single guy who heard this was entirely squicked out and empathized with my extreme discomfort at the whole experience. Again, not some - not most - every single one. I am not intentionally singling Dr. Isis out - it is just that she is the only one who reacted in comments - but her response is typical of women who have responded to this. Juniper reacted much the same way.

I am not interested in making anyone feel bad, but I do think it is important to really think about the reactions to this. This was not funny - not in the least. I am extremely secure about my sexuality and in spite of being a little heavier than I would like, I am very comfortable with my body. Not just a little - I am a fairly devout nudist who tends to look at clothing as protection from the elements, a chance to accessorize and mostly to cater to the fear of Teh Naked that is so pervasive. Given all that, I was more than just uncomfortable with what happened - I felt absolutely violated. Not as horrible as I would be feeling if he had shoved me against a wall and raped me - or tried to. But violated none the less. And I really can't help but wonder what someone who is insecure about their sexuality and their body - like a substantial majority of people in our society are.

I know men who would have serious issues with ever going into a communal shower again after something like that.

In the interest of bringing something good out of this horrid experience, I would like the women who read this to consider this in a different light. Imagine you have just finished a fairly intense workout. You're sore, your a bit worn out and you have errands to run, so the only comfort you're going to get for some time, is in the shower. You're one of only two people in the locker room when you go into the communal shower and let the hot water soothe sore muscles. You are just starting to wash, when the other women in the locker room gets into the shower and takes a gander around the corner - then gets to showering herself.

When you happen to glance over, you notice she is washing her vagina and looking at you while doing so - she quickly gets to cleaning other bits. You think little of it as you continue washing. But when you happen to glance over again, you notice she is looking at you and rather furiously washing her vagina again. You can't be 100% certain she is masturbating, but it is exceedingly unlikely she's not - and moreover she's ogling you while doing so.

Mind you, she hasn't made any overt moves on you. The closest she has come to expressing interest could easily be, and in fact was, interpreted as just being friendly - not really flirtatious. Yet there she is, ogling you and pleasuring herself.

Now imagine talking about it and writing about it, only to have the reaction from every guy who hears about this laugh about it.

The Creationist Tactics of the Puritanical "Feminist" Movement

Renegade Evolution has a post up about one Donna Hughes, a puritanical "feminist" who's tirades would be right at home with those of Don Wildmon (AFA), James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and Beverly LeHaye (Concerned Women for America). Apparently Donna is taking even more cues from the religious right, using the same quotemining and mischaracterizations creationists are so very fond of. I am not going to spend the time debunking, when Renegade has done such a grand job. I am just going to reiterate a point that I have made here before and several times in meatspace - including to the faces of more than one puritanical "feminist."

When you are pushing repressive, anti-sex bullshit, you are sucking far more patriarchal cock, than those who do it for cash. So who exactly is the whore here?

Please check out her post and share it with your friends... (ht, Lou FCD)

And while we're on the topic of sexual repression, let me post a little tidbit that was sent to me by someone who shall remain nameless (unless s/he chooses to reveal)... Apparently, this does not totally get viewed on my page - clicking on it will reveal the climax...


Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

Give That Moderate Theist A MotherFucking Cookie

Addendum - My lovely partner (and Thomas himself) has pointed out that Thomas isn't particularly liberal. So we can add that he is also one of those delusional fucks who pretends that anyone who can't afford healthcare doesn't deserve it. What would you feel, if you suddenly lost the coverage you have. Seriously, if you did, would you just stoically accept that it is all your fault and that you simply don't deserve it? Because shit happens motherfucker, shit that you just can't plan for. What you have today could be gone tomorrow - through no fault of your own. So tell me, if you lost it all and needed help, can we assume you would be good enough to stand by your convictions? How about if you get desperately ill and your insurance company finds a way to squirrel out of covering it? Hmm?

Exhaustion has prevented me from getting nearly as much done with all this as I was planning, but there you have it. Eleven hours in the car yesterday, with a seven year old and a twenty month old, then another hour and a half after we dropped them off was rough. Getting on the road this morning by eight was also rough. But here I am...

Some moderate theists have been on the defensive, as of late. Philip H. was rather resentful of some characterizations of moderate theists. And a certain Thomas Joseph rather resents being lumped with extremist, fundamentalist loons. He whines that he's different - better. He's a liberal and all around decent fellow. And, and - he accepts evolution... Well YAY!!! Thomas, how about a motherfucking cookie? Because you deserve a cookie for being such an upstanding fellow who is apparently only mildly delusional. And dammit man, I am so sorry if my criticism of religion was in any way offensive - after all, it's your personal thing and your god forbid, I should criticize you're personal beliefs as though they have any impact on the society and the world in which I have to live and raise my family.

Except that they do.

But no, sputter the Thomases and Philips - we're decent people and don't believe monstrous things. We support gay rights and a woman's right to choose - we're decent liberal folks, who just want to be left alone to our faith. Don't alienate US!!! RESPECT!!! RESPECT!!!

I will most certainly not, fuck you very much. More to the point, I will happily respect you. I will respect your political stances when I agree and argue them when I don't. I will not, however, have the least respect for your religion. The fact that it is moderate, even liberal, just makes it more insidious and less worthy of my respect. To be clear, little more than a year or so ago, I was one of you. I spent the vast majority of my life wallowing in destructive ignorance and bullshit, not a whole lot different than your own. Moreover, I was a fundamentalist way back yonder, when I was quite young. I worshiped, with all of my heart and mind, the same genocidal maniac that you worship.

Eventually I got better and started recovering.

It is not the orthodox, fundamentalists and other assorted extreme theists who perpetuate the very worse that faith has to offer our society. It is the moderates who foster this mentality that says we should allow parents not to vaccinate their children, because some imaginary being told them not to. It is moderates who foster the notion that kids should be allowed to be "educated" at home, with little or no real monitoring from the state and allowed to wallow in ignorance, because that is what their religion demands. It is moderates who foster the attitudes that we should allow them to opt their children out of vital aspects of education - some of them lifesaving, because their gods don't want them to learn about science or avoiding STIs. It is the moderates who foster the belief, that I am a very nasty man indeed, for daring to criticize ignorant fucking bullshit, or for simply not believing in magical beings.

It is fucking moderates who foster the social phenom that makes the fringe fucking loons and their egregious behaviors acceptable.

And to make this whole conversation more delicious, Thomas is a bloody Catholic. So Mr. Nice Liberal Fellow, supports an organization that bears the brunt of the blame for the scope of the AIDS pandemic that is decimating massive swaths of sub-Saharan Africa. He supports an organization that hates most of my friends, simply because they prefer to have relations with members of their same sex. He supports an organization that believes women should not have the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. He supports an organization that believes that birth control is fucking evil. He supports an organization that has repeatedly shown blatant disregard for the welfare of children, by not only allowing pedophiles in the clergy to have continued access to children, but also by actively fighting against those sick fucks being prosecuted or their victims receiving reparations.

While I am certain there are areas in which Thomas and I agree, in which he is even worthy of my respect, he has given up all credibility when it comes to discussing criticism of theism. In that, he gets nothing but my utter disdain.

Library Unit Four: Fun With Menstruation

“A Women's Curse?”
Meredith F. Small
The Sciences, Jan/Feb, 1999 p. 24-29

The bulk of Small's article discusses the work of UofM anthropologist Beverly Strassmann's study of menstruation among the Dogon of West Africa. What she was seeking was the possible roles that menstrual taboos could play into “natural fertility” populations. Strassmann believed that there were important biological roles being generally ignored, in regards to menstruation and reproduction.

The Dogon worked out to be a very good choice for study. The Dogon women spend their menstrual cycle segregated to the menstrual huts. Through urinalysis Strassmann determined that this segregation was closely adhered, in spite of most of the women finding the experience extremely unpleasant. This made it very easy to follow the cycles of the women in the villages Strassmann was studying. And with nearly two years of data on 477 complete cycles, studying ninety-three women, there was a great deal to work with.

One of the reasons for the taboo, she discovered, was to help determine paternity. In a culture where the father is responsible for his children and where property is passed along to male heirs, it is critically important to keep track of who the father of a given child is. And when it is everyone can see who is going to the menstrual huts, and who isn't – it becomes easier to determine who impregnated a given women. This is also important because the Dogon people are polygonous and there is no taboo against sexual intercourse for those who are unmarried.

This taboo also managed to make it clear if a woman happens to be infertile or menopausal. When a women in prime reproductive age is always visiting the hut, it becomes apparent that she is obviously not likely to reproduce. On the other hand, when I women stops visiting the hut altogether, is it obvious she is no longer fertile.

Strassmann also hypothesized that menstruation may have evolved as a method for conserving resources – keeping the body from using too much energy on reproduction, during a cycle that renders women infertile for a period of time. Instead of producing the excess that usually goes into creating a fertile place for a potential zygote to begin gestation, during the period of flushing things slow down entirely.

What I found most interesting however, is the possibility that women in Western society are at a distinct biological advantage to women who live within a natural fertility paradigm. The data shows that women in Dogon society, for example, only have an average of 110 menstrual cycles in their lifetimes, compared to the average of 350 to 400 for Westerners. Between reproducing at a significantly higher rate than Westerners, and breast feeding vigorously for longer periods than most Western women, they don't menstruate nearly as often.

I also found the discussion of the way that Dogon culture utilizes menstruation as a multitool for determining a great many issues within their society. While the underlying reasoning is significantly different, it turns out that this is a very useful tool for their culture, for a whole lot of reasons.

Finally, I find the interconnection of anthropological study, biology and sociology extremely interesting. Beyond the subject matter, the cross discipline integration is of particular interest to me – especially as I am seeing that there are a lot of other disciplines and even very different fields of study, that have a great deal of relevance to the direction I am going with my studies and where I want to go with my career. It is terribly exciting to discover new directions, new areas that have are potentially critical components of the places I wish to go – the ideas that I am keen on fostering and developing.

A Word on the Spiritualization of Sex...

I am about finished writing a review of a sex educational video on the G-spot and fortuitously discovered an excellent post by Greta Christina on a topic that is very relevant to the DVD I am reviewing right now. Because while this particular movie is an excellent instructional, it is also rather rife with sex woo (I will be reviewing some educational videos that aren't so big on the woo as well). I think the quality of instruction and also the overall format of this movie make it worthy in spite of the woo, but I definitely have some issues with the spiritualizing of sexuality.

I am in the process of organizing and will start writing a series on sex and sexuality, from a basic discussion of exploring your partner's body and into discussions about how our society in general treats sex, human sexuality outside the hetero/homo dichotomy and beyond. I will be posting fairly detailed instructional posts about the mechanics of certain sexual techniques and ways to enhance the sexual pleasure of both partners and even get into self-pleasure. I am not going to stop posting about the things I generally post about and intend for this series to be written over an extended period...And now that word about sex woo....

"Tantric Orgasms and Sacred Sex: New Age Spirituality in the Sex Community," is actually a response to some discussions of Greta's earlier post; "A Skeptic's View of Sexual Transcendence." Specifically it addresses the question of why so much of the sex-positive community is into this spiritualization of sexuality.

I am not so far out of my own Faith and spirituality. It was less than a year ago, when I finally let it all go and that, kicking and screaming (metaphorically). So it is really easy for me to miss out on the obvious and I think that Greta really hits on some issues that should be pretty obvious to someone like me, who has been there and come out the other side.

In short, her first point is that society as a generalization tends to look at religion/spiritualism as positive forces, while the generalized social perception of sex is more of a negative. Thus many in the sex positive community will equate sexuality as a spiritual experience. She also makes a couple of other important points and I highly recommend reading both of the posts I linked to, but I rather wanted to focus on this point - mainly because it is absolutely not what ever motivated me to perceive sex as a spiritual experience. In all honesty, I have never thought of sex as a bad thing, ever since that initial clumsy fumbling about with a girl I went to church with, so many years ago. Indeed, both that then girl and I both walked away from our virginity believing that sex is absolutely fucking wonderful - in spite of the fact that that first time wasn't terribly impressive - the key was that it felt really good and absolutely nothing horrible happened because of it. While I have not had contact with her in more than ten years, I would consider her a rather dear friend and am confident that she feels the same about me.

But then, most people are aware I'm something of a freak. If you weren't aware, hang around for a while and you'll get the picture. Point being, I suspect that there really is something to Greta's assertion. And because I suspect that there is something to her assertion, I feel the need to clarify how I feel about sex and more importantly, the perspective I will be approaching this topic from. I don't want people who feel some kind of spiritual connection through sex to feel that I don't respect you or that these posts are just not for you. You are absolutely welcome here and while I don't buy into the spiritualization of sex, I don't have a problem with you doing so...I would however, suggest that you really consider your feelings about sex and what might be motivating those feelings.

Obviously I think that sex is a positive thing. And now that I have gotten done telling you that I don't buy into the spiritualization of sex, I will clarify that sex can and often is a transcendent experience for me. It is one of the few activities that makes it possible for me to actually get out of my head. I get hyperfocused when I am having sex - I am not thinking about anything else, not splitting my focus at all - everything and everything is about pleasing my partner. At the same time, my partner is doing exactly the same with me and thus, we are both experiencing intense pleasures, while not being entirely cognisant of what is happening to our own bodies - it's almost like experiencing the pleasure through the person we are pleasing.

It's also what to me, defines the difference between sex and masturbation that uses someone else's body as a sex toy.

I truly and passionately believe that sex is an incredible way to connect to other human beings. I have never been huge on monogamy, because I have never been one to equate sex with love in the sense of loving a romantic partner - though that is changing as I am developing a relationship the likes of which I have never experienced before. That is not to say that I don't equate sex with love - I have loved most of the people I had sex with, on a certain level. But I have never really been one to make a solid connection between having sex and the love that I have had for the few romantic partners I've had. But I love to make that connection - the feeling of another person's body, reacting and moving - solidly connected to my body - sweaty, messy and completely, deliciously raw human interaction.

Why the fuck do we need to attach something more to something so very awesome as all that? Putting some spiritual dimension to it can't possibly add anything to the wonder that is the sexual experience. It is plenty magical enough, without adding actual magical thinking to the mix - I tend to think that such magical thinking can only be a detraction - a distraction from being so wholly consumed by this engagement with another human being. If you are focusing on some magical component, it is just that much less focus you are putting into making this sex, the very best sexual experience your partner has ever had.

Sex is truly transcendent enough, without the magical thinking and I can't help but think that it is far more transcendent when the magical thinking isn't getting in the way...

Silence Is The Enemy

I've never been raped, never been sexually assaulted, never been inappropriately touched even. In all honesty, I have never been nervous walking to my car at night, in a deserted parking lot or on an empty street. I've never been concerned about a man or women staring at me in a restaurant or the coffee shop - honestly, I'm pretty oblivious to that sort of thing.

I have however, been the object of wary, nervous glances from women who happened to be walking on the same deserted street I was. I have been an object of fear, because I am a guy and in certain circumstances women should be assuming that I am a potential attacker. Actually they shouldn't, because reality shouldn't require it - but it does and as long as it does they should. I hate being thought of that way - being the type of person that I am, that is the last thing that any women should fear from me. But that's the reality in which we live.

Rape happens here in this corner of the western world. It happens all too often and while we as a society don't approve and indeed consider rape repugnant and vile, women still need to be wary of strangers on the street. Because whether the assault was instigated by a stranger or, more often, by someone the victim knows or is related to, I doubt anyone reading this doesn't know a women who was sexually assaulted - most of us probably know men who have been as well. Even in our western society, with western mores, there are a lot of sick fucking people who do sick fucked up things to other people.

But at least in our society, this behavior is considered vile and repugnant, the perpetrators pathological.

In many other cultures, in other parts of the world this is not the case. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times writes of post-civil war Liberia, where rape has fallen off from 75% of Liberian women being raped during the war. Now the figure is around 12% of "women" seventeen years old and younger being raped - with 33% of those being inflicted on children twelve years old and younger. And this story is echoed all over the globe, in cultures that just accept it as a matter of course.

From Congo, to Darfur, all the way into Latin America, there are places where one can assume that any women you meet over the age of twenty has probably been raped - violently. Those who have not are the exception. And unlike the U.S., the UK, Germany or any other western nation, these women don't have the support of counselors, law enforcement or anyone else outside of their own families and sometimes not even there. It's life and that's that.

Sheril Kirshenbaum and Dr. Isis have teamed up with Scicurious, Tara Smith and Jessica Palmer, in donating their blog income for the next month to Doctors Without Borders. Sheril Writes:

The goal is two-fold: Raising funds and–arguably more importantly–awareness. Since blogging revenue increases with traffic, we hope to get people to keep coming back for more information about what’s going on and thinking about how to make a difference. Do not feel obligated to donate, but it’s one idea. There are many ways to contribute: Write and email Members of Congress (Congressional Directory here), speak at community meetings, encourage others to get involved, or donate to our chosen charity (Doctors Without Borders). Help us maximize our donations by visiting Isis, Jessica, Tara, Neurotopia, and returning here often because every click will help raise money. Spread the word. We want to make sure elected officials at multiple levels realize this is a global issue that matters to a large voting constituency!

There is always something we can do, even those of us who haven't money to help with. If you have a blog, write about this. Whether you do or not, write to the people on your email list - send them to Sheril's blog post, or that of anyone else who's written about this. Hell, copy and paste this whole entry and send it to them. Write your local and federal politicos and pretend they're actually good for something. Talk to the student affairs office, or it's equivalent at your local educational institutions and see about having someone in to speak about it - or even do some research and ask if you can speak. Public libraries are also a good place to try to have a speaking engagement of this sort. Be creative - if you have other ideas, leave them in comments or email me with them.

And if you do choose to write about this at your own blog, email Sheril at srkirshenbaum@yahoo.com and let her know. For that matter, let me know too and I will do my best to put up links as well.

I discovered Sheril's post via Greg Laden's post on this - well worth reading.
And here is a list of bloggers stepping up...Soon to be in Sheril's sidebar.

Wherein DuWayne Rants About the #$@&ing Drug Laws

Before I start, I would really like to recommend that you take a listen to Gabriela Montero. I recently discovered her whilst listening to one of my Pandora stations and her playing made me weep for the beauty and the passion with which she throws herself into her variations and compositions. Gabriela is a wholly remarkable pianist, a child prodigy who has matured into brilliant and nuanced composer. And she is also great stress relief...

I have had a not so grand day today. It started well enough, though not as productively as I might have wished. And I had a fantastic visit with the doctor, where we discussed my meds and how the new regimen has been working out. We decided to double my dose of Wellbutrin, from 100mg in the morning to 100mg in the morning and another at lunch (something I was going to do a couple weeks ago, but chose to wait because he wanted to see me to add the extra dose). I was actually feeling pretty damned good when I left the doctor's office - almost three and I had only smoked two cigarettes all day.

How quickly things can change. Today I discovered just how fragile a thing, this thing that is my calm and collect self.

More...

The fucking war on drugs put me on the verge of a nervous fucking breakdown today. Though I was heading that way when I went to get my scripts filled in the first place.

My fucking Wellbutrin costs eighty-six fucking dollars as a fucking generic. Eighty-six dollars!!! And the version I am taking is not available much cheaper anywhere - including mail order. I very nearly started crying in the fucking store when they told me that. I'm working on getting help with my scripts through the state, but the wheels turn slowly. My folks are helping out some, but that just stresses me out more, because I don't want to be a fucking burden on them at thirty-two years old. I was frustrated and angry and decided to hold off on that one to see if I could find to cheaper elsewhere, or if there might be another option for finding Bupropion for less, but in the same dose as I've been taking.

No such luck, this time around.

So I decide to get it filled and owe my parents even more. Fucking yeah for me!!! I headed back to Wal-Mart and handed the women at the window the script, having completely forgotten that I had been told earlier (when I dropped off the others) that they were out of that one anyways. The women at the window punched it all into the computer and told me it would be about twenty minutes, so I sat down to wait. After about half an hour, the women who had originally taken my scripts came out to remind me that they were out of that particular dosage of Wellbutrin. Mind you, the women who had taken the script had seen me sitting there several times, while helping other fucking customers - never once occurred to her to let me know that I couldn't get my fucking drug. Nor did they consider just fucking calling me to tell me - if they hadn't noticed (they are usually really good about calling for stuff like that and they weren't very busy).

What the fuck does this have to do with the war in drugs, you ask?

I had a check with me, written for the total cost of all three of my scripts. And even though another Wal-Mart has the Welbutrin, I couldn't pay for it at the one I was in. So I had to transfer the other two to the other fucking pharmacy as well. The only problem being that Clonidine and Ritalin are controlled fucking substances and they can't be called in. They can't be faxed over and apparently, they can't even get them ready in anticipation of the fucking paper script being brought in. Nor can they be refilled - every month, my doctor has to write another script for me.

Of course I had wasted nearly half an hour sitting in fucking Wal-Mart before I became aware that I would have to go to another store - about half an hour across town. And not only would I have to run over there to get them, I would have to fucking wait there while they filled my other two scripts - because we have the most ridiculous fucking drug laws ever. Mind you, it was close to dinner time and a friend of mine was joining us. I was about fifteen minutes late when it was all over with. (Though I did get a text from the most beautiful and brilliant women in the world, who just seems to know when a text from her is going to take the edge off of stressful situations - thanks Juniper)

My problems today and with getting more than thirty days worth of my meds at a time, are far from the only egregious intrusion that our draconian drug laws have thrust into medicine. Because of course, there is also the war on pain management to be considered. You know, the war in which not only patients who doctor shop and fraudulently acquire multiple scripts for the same pain killers (often times to sell them) got to jail, but even doctors who appear to be over prescribing and patients who are engaged in a good faith pain management regimen with their (only) prescribing doctor.

I am so fucking tired of this paternalistic fucking bullshit! This has gotten beyond fucking ridiculous - went beyond that point fucking years ago. The war on drugs interferes with the ability of doctors to care for patients, therapists to freely help drug addicts and substance abusers and patients to have reasonably simple and rather less costly access to their medications.

Fuck You drug warriors - Every MotherFucking One of You!!!

Social Gender Roles, Feminism and Men

To develop a solid focus for my next paper, I am reading Terrance Real's book I Don't Want to Talk About it. I will definitely delve into the book itself in a later post, probably after I finish the actual paper. For the moment though, I want to delve into where exactly I'm trying to go with this paper - which will be eight to twelve pages in APA format. On page twenty-three he delves into the heart of where I am going.

For decades, feminist researchers and scholars have detailed the degree of coercion brought to bear against girls' full development, and the sometimes devastating effects of the loss of their most complete, authentic selves. It is time to understand the reciprocal process as it occurs in the lives of boys and men.

I will take this a bit further and assert that this study that Terrence is calling for is as important to women's studies and modern feminism, as it is to men. It is not nearly enough for feminists to tell us what we are doing wrong, how we are oppressing women. It must be understood that in any discussion of gender issues, all sides of the equation need to be addressed. The solutions to many of the issues facing women and modern feminism, are inexorably tied to solving the problems of male gender constructs.

Dr. Isis recently posted the letter of a male reader here. And this is an important discussion. While I take serious issue with the writer's use of the phrase "reverse discrimination," this is a semantic issue - important to be sure, but not fatal to his underlying point. The issue of discrimination against men based on social gender constructs, is just another facet of the issue of discrimination against women based on the same social gender constructs. The male gender doesn't exist in a vacuum, separate from the female gender - the social constructs are intertwined, they interact with and impact each other in very complex ways. Simplistic dichotomies cannot and never will be able to address the fundamental problems inherent to both male and female social gender constructs as they exist in society today.

On all fronts changes are being made and progress is being made, but that progress is dramatically stunted by the fact that nearly all of the focus is on studying women and female gender constructs. There are probably no more than a handful of colleges in the United States, or anywhere in the western world, that do not have a women's studies program. In contrast, there are probably no more than a handful of colleges that have men's studies programs. While there are general gender studies programs, those are generally focused on women's studies, transgender studies and queer theory, with little emphasis placed on men's studies.

I am very glad that JLK recommended Terrence's book. I am also most grateful to her for fostering the gender discussions. It has definitely made for some interesting lines of thought. I Don't Want to Talk About It is an intense read thus far. Terrence is a very compelling wordsmith, on top of having truly awesome insight into the issues of male depression and the underlying gender constructs that allow it to remain largely hidden, even from the men who suffer it.

So on top of some repair work with my first addiction paper, I now need to work out a basic thesis and set of research questions for my next paper. I actually have a pretty solid preliminary bibliography already, I just need to develop the actual topic proposal. If I can, I want to get finished with the abstract and outline during this week of spring break. We'll see what happens...

Eugenics, Yes, I said Eugenics; Is there a problem?

Please check out and even contribute to the comments section. We have a decent discussion going and would love to hear from you too.

At this point if you're reading this, it is quite likely you've only recently discovered my blog. Mainly because I quite recently posted for the first time in a very long time. I'm really glad that I did, because someone managed to go back and hit on a post I wrote over a year ago (granted there weren't many posts between here and there). I'm glad, because I really think this is an important discussion to have - one that becomes more important by the day. And the comment left by Juniper Shoemaker is worth addressing. And to make it really fun, Juniper is a geneticist in training. (Juniper is also the bittering agent in the last beer I had, an awesome brew by my friend Mac back in Portland.)

For those who might not want to read the original post, I am basically making the argument that we need to get past the hysterics that almost inevitably ensue when the word eugenics is brought up. I would like to be clear that I am not advocating for or against eugenics, though there are certainly ideas involving eugenics that I am strongly against. All that I am advocating for is a rational discussion of eugenics, much like Richard Dawkins did a couple years ago.

The reason this is important right now, is that a lot of controversial things are happening that should be fostering important conversations. But those conversations aren't really happening and I suspect that the reason they aren't happening is because the term eugenics is so very loaded. So before I get into addressing Juniper's comment, I would like to point you to a very illustrative post that discusses eugenics. (without ever actually using the word)

Turns out that a couple had been searching for awhile to find an egg donor who looked like the mother and possessed certain attributes that clinics do not approve of as legitimate donor criteria.

Yup, that there is a shining example of eugenics in action. It's not abortion. It's not killing a flawed infant. It's not sterilization and it's not genocide. It's simply a couple who needs a little help having a child, a couple who wanted to exert a little control over the genes of their child to be. Not really very controversial, it's not much different than the decisions people make when choosing a mate they might reproduce with naturally. But on to Juniper's comment....

The problem with eugenicists is that they ignore the fact that the desirability of ANY trait is dependent on its environment. The environment always changes. Traits you cannot possibly conceive of as "desirable" today could prove desirable tomorrow for a myriad of reasons. For all we know, these traits could include hypertension, bipolar disorder, Down's syndrome and autism. Reality is bizarre and unpredictable.

I have no problem with that. I'm bipolar and also have very severe ADHD. And guess what? My son has been diagnosed with severe ADHD and probably has either some of my other neurological issues or those of his mom. I have very little doubt that my youngest will also exhibit something of our neurological issues too. I can even accept that there may well be some value in the propensity for DS as well.

I will also go as far as saying that the idea of aborting a fetus that has tested positive for DS is not a black and white decision or an absolute net positive. This, in spite of the fact that if our incredible one year old had tested positive as a fetus, he would not be with us today. No question, no discussion necessary. Had that test come back different, we would have terminated the pregnancy. Because while the idea is far from black and white, our ability to deal with it is absolutely clear. We already have a child who needs a lot of special attention. Under ideal circumstances, the sibling of a child with that level of disability is going to lose out. In the case of a sibling who has special needs of his own, it's a recipe for disaster.

But this statement of Juniper's is really the crux of the matter. She is presenting one of the best examples of why we really need to have this discussion. Because right now, it is possible to test for a variety of traits, invitro and make decisions to abort based on those tests.

Call me a hypocrite, because I will freely admit that in a sense I am one. I am fully aware that any child I produce is likely to carry certain traits of mine, that aren't all sunshine and roses. Having the neurological issues that I have is not an easy burden to bear. But I have reproduced and more than once. And I think that the value that comes from having neurochemiustry such as mine, is ultimately worth the hardship it entails. Honestly, if it becomes possible to test for ADHD invitro, I would have serious issues with the notion of trying to eliminate that trait.

Yet without question, I would have no problem with terminating the pregnancy of a fetus that has tested positively for DS. I'd like to say that this is only because of the child I already have. But being perfectly honest, I don't think my reaction would be much different if I was childless. Dealing with a child with that level of need is not something I think I am suited for.

And then we have a somewhat gray area for me (but not for a lot of people), autism. I suspect most people out there who would terminate a pregnancy for DS, would also terminate a pregnancy if there were a significant risk of autism. I'm not one of them, but that is because I have a fair number of autistic friends. At the same time, having the older child I do, I am not sure given the option, I could, in good conscience bring a fetus to term that carried a significant risk of severe autism.

These are not black and white questions, but they are well on there way to being a fact of life and are indicative of why we need to be talking about eugenics.

However, it irritates me when eugenicists assume that the only reason why people get pissed off with them is the "controversial" nature of the subject. That implies that people have to choose between a ringing endorsement of a loaded practice or a sheep-like unthinking aversion to the practice.

Honestly, I think that this is why we need to separate Eugenicists, from ownership of eugenics. Because I really don't think it's reasonable at all to allow anyone lay claim to a concept that is as broad as eugenics. Eugenicists, as Juniper is describing tend to fall into a fairly narrow range of beliefs. And those beliefs are not based on actual science, any more than the beliefs of the so called intelligent design movement, or evolutionary psychology.

I get pissed off because people who like the idea of eugenics usually have a shitty understanding of evolutionary theory.

I would take that one step further and say that eugenics only has a peripheral relationship to evolution at all. Because eugenics is really contra-evolution. Not that being contra-evolution makes eugenics inherently bad. But the claims made by Eugenicists are worse than ignorant, I believe that for the most part they are flat dishonest.

No matter how dishonest, no matter how ignorant their theories, I think it is long past time to take the concept of eugenics away from the Eugenics movement. It is also way past time to take the concept of eugenics away from the specter of the Nazis. Because like it or not, eugenics is a reality and the hysteria surrounding it is preventing us from having some very important discussions with very profound social implications.

More on the Conversation that Never Ends

The last post garnered rather a lot of response, so I wanted to clarify a few things. Also, quite a few responses came via email. Please, comment publicly. There were several good points made, that I think could add a lot of value to the discussion. For those who are uncomfortable talking about this openly, I do allow anonymous comments - i.e. I don't get any information about you. I only ask that you sign off with some identifier, besides simply anonymous. I don't care what you choose to use as a screen name, just give me something to refer to. Unidentified comments will be deleted.

I would also take this opportunity to point out that another sciblogger has weighed in on this. Dr Free-Ride, at Adventures in Ethics and Science, makes some very similar points to my own.

First, Abel actually was referring to legal wrangling, when he talked about going over the line. And this is a very important factor in discussion of issues such as sex and drugs with our children.

This is a very real concern, for a lot of parents. The only real answer for it, is to be active and try to affect change in our communities. In many places it is possible to have one's children taken away or be otherwise oppressed for making very reasonable and sound parenting choices. And it's a catch twenty two. On the one hand, the only way to effect change is to talk about why these are perfectly reasonable choices. On the other hand, if one talks about it, it could be cause for serious legal problems. This is a tough enough issue that even living someplace as reasonable about these things as Portland is, it still makes me a bit nervous, talking about it.

I do know that this is a pretty big problem, one that is all the more difficult, having been raised to believe that the freedom of expression is akin to being a sacred ideal. Especially true when it comes to raising one's children and doing what we believe is right, to raise as functional, ethical and safe children as we can. There are no easy answers. Many contributors to the problem are rather obvious, but actually changing them, is as complex a problem as trying to break the deathgrip the republicrats have on American electoral politics. One advantage, is that this is very much a localized issue and we can all get very directly involved with local politics. It is still an uphill fight, but I think it is one worth fighting.

Drugmonkey also weighed in, with a very important point about risk assessment. This being that even a seemingly small chance, such as one percent, is not as small as it seems. To illustrate, take a group of five hundred kids, not far off the mark for a lot of graduating classes at high schools all over the country. If anything, it's probably a little small. But it works for illustrating the numbers easily.

Something that affects one percent of a teen population, is going to affect five kids in that group. But that leaves four hundred, ninety five kids who it doesn't affect, right? Of course it does, but I want you to consider exactly what this means. I want you to consider the odds of one of those five kids being someone you and your child knows. At the least, it is exceedingly likely that at least one of the five will be known to someone you/your child knows. Less likely, but still plausible, one of those five will be your child. So lets look at some numbers, kindly provided by Drugmonkey;

In this we are supported by the data in the sense that 50% of 12th graders have tried an illicit drug, 73% have tried alcohol and 56% report having "been drunk".

So lets look at how this translates into our group of five hundred kids. We have a full two hundred, fifty kids who will try an illicit drug. Two hundred, eighty of them will get drunk. And three hundred, sixty five will try alcohol. To be clear, it is virtually impossible that you/your child will not know several kids who will fall into one or more of those categories.

I would also like to take a look at the numbers for inhalant use among teens, from this context. Mainly, because this is the one that frightens me the most. According to a 2006 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (Warning, PDF link), 11.1% of twelfth graders have used inhalants, holding steady since 2002. Finding statistics on the percentage of kids who use inhalants, who die of it is proving rather difficult, but according to this same report, of those who die, 22% are first time users. So of our group of five hundred kids, fifty-five or fifty-six of them will use inhalants. Here is a listing of likely side effects of inhalant abuse, from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Note the stats are a little different for the frequency of use. Keep in mind that until this page, we have been looking at statistics for use before high school graduation. NIDA's figures are for lifetime use, not just use among youth.

So while it is easy to point at figures like one percent, and assume that this means something is safe, the reality is that one percent isn't that far away from us, at any given point.

Finally, I wanted to clarify what I am trying to encourage parents to do. I am not suggesting that parents tell their children that if they really need to use drugs, do such and such, because it's safer than other options. While for some kids, that might well become a reasonable method of harm reduction, most kids really don't need that. What I am advocating, is nothing more than providing our kids with enough information, to make an informed decision, should they choose not to abstain. Make sure that you aren't going to find them cold and dead in their bedroom, with an aerosol can in their mouth. Make sure they aren't going to drive intoxicated, or ride with an intoxicated driver.

A Perfect WInter Storm Developing

I would like to thank Tara Smith, of Aetiology, for kindly giving me permission to disseminate this information to my readers, by posting it here. I think the information posted is very important and hope you will also take the time to click over to Orac's post on the topic as well. I do have some other crossposts to put up as well, I apologize but they will get up asap. This is rather important and took precedent.

My own short take on this, is simple. People who do not wish to vaccinate their children, should be allowed to make that decision, for whatever reason. But if they decide not to do so, they should not be allowed to send their children to public schools, nor should private schools be required to accept them. There are those kids who do not develop anti-bodies after being vaccinated. They depend on herd immunity to keep them healthy. They should not be put at risk, due to someone else's bad choices, religiously motivated or not.

From Aetiology;
Tara C. Smith is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology. Her research involves a number of pathogens at the animal-human nexus. Additionally, she is the founder of Iowa Citizens for Science and also writes for The Panda's Thumb. Please note the views expressed on this site are Dr. Smith's alone and may not be representative of the groups mentioned above.

A few news stories hit my inbox all at once yesterday--and the combination of them doesn't bode well for childrens' health; more after the jump.

First, despite several years now of banging the drum for having kids vaccinated against influenza, they're still being overlooked when it comes to pandemic planning:

Children would likely be both prime spreaders and targets of a flu pandemic, but they're being overlooked in the nation's preparations for the next super-flu, pediatricians and public health advocates reported Wednesday.

The report urges the government to improve planned child protections, including how to care for youngsters if a pandemic closes schools.

"Right now, we are behind the curve in finding ways to limit the spread of a pandemic in children even though they are among the most at risk," said Dr. John Bradley of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which co-authored the report with the Trust for America's Health.

The story brings up 3 issues that haven't been addressed: no masks available in childrens' sizes (and even if they were, would kids leave them on? Certainly it's tough enough to get even adults to use them effectively). What about vaccine doses for--and efficacy in--children? There has been some investigation already into H5N1 vaccine for adults (with not-so-great results thus far), but to my knowledge, nothing has been done yet in kids. (And of course, that's assuming H5N1 would be the pandemic strain, which is far from certain). Also, they mention something I'd not even considered regarding potential school closings: what happens to kids who rely on the school lunch program, if the schools are shut down in the event of a pandemic?

In a second story which comes as little surprise, parents are increasingly lying about their religious beliefs to avoid vaccinating their kids, due to autism fears:

Sabrina Rahim doesn't practice any particular faith, but she had no problem signing a letter declaring that because of her deeply held religious beliefs, her 4-year-old son should be exempt from the vaccinations required to enter preschool.

She is among a small but growing number of parents around the country who are claiming religious exemptions to avoid vaccinating their children when the real reason may be skepticism of the shots or concern they can cause other illnesses. Some of these parents say they are being forced to lie because of the way the vaccination laws are written in their states.

"Forced to lie." Right. Meanwhile, because she's worried about discredited research suggesting a link between vaccines and autism, she's putting everyone's kids at risk:

"When you choose not to get a vaccine, you're not just making a choice for yourself, you're making a choice for the person sitting next to you," said Dr. Lance Rodewald, director of the CDC's Immunization Services Division.

(Orac also offers his take on this topic).

These two stories also feed back into what I wrote on Monday about regarding methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) increasing in the community, and specifically, recent outbreaks in schools. Following reports of a recent MRSA outbreak in a Virginia school comes news of another one in Texas.

So, more explicitly, how do all these stories tie into each other?

You may remember a few years back that there were reports of a spike in influenza deaths in children in the U.S.. These weren't due to influenza alone, but like many influenza fatalities, were caused by influenza complicated by secondary bacterial infections, including MRSA--which proved to be a highly fatal combination. Last year's flu season wasn't too bad, but still the combination of influenza and MRSA proved to be deadly for a number of children.

Kids still aren't getting influenza shots at the rate recommended, despite being in a high-risk group for influenza deaths (and being efficient little spreaders of the virus). Add in the resistance to vaccination that many parents are expressing (including to voluntary shots such as influenza), and the winter cold-and-flu season has the potential to be even worse than usual for kids in the coming years. Many schools are already increasing awareness regarding Staph infections, but as the article notes, they're incredibly difficult to control:

Rappahannock Superintendent Bob Chappell said school employees also followed a local hospital's advice to mop hallways and classrooms with a bleach solution. The cost of the cleanup: more than $10,000.

***

"What's clear to us is that this bacteria is coming into our schools from the community because the cases are so widespread, and there appears to be no pattern," said Montgomery schools spokesman Brian Edwards.

As always, washing hands and doing everything possible to keep one's germs to oneself are critical, but even our best efforts can be unsuccessful (as I can currently attest, suffering from a bad cold that unfortunately my son also caught). Once mainly a hospital pathogen, MRSA has become far more common in the community: as they note, it's widespread, and the isolates they've examined so far don't appear to be from a common source (which would likely be easier to get rid of). And of course, missed vaccinations don't only put children at a risk of serious complications from influenza, but a host of other diseases as well. I hope we don't need this kind of resurgence to make people remember how serious these diseases can be

Rights 2.5 A digression; Abortion

I have created a monster! Kurt has seen to give me the second part of part two, inspired by comments from Beth apparently. As I am too busy (lazy?) to write much lately, I am pleased to add this to the ongoing series on rights, by Kurt. Thanks.

This is an expansion on a section I had in Part 2, but deleted because the article was getting too long, and I wanted to avoid a bit of controversy. As the discussion is moving in that direction, here it is.

It is difficult to discuss the right to life without touching upon the abortion question. Like any other aspect of culture, we can analyze this based upon human wants and needs, as constrained by environment and technology.

In a purely agrarian society, the average child has paid for his upkeep by the time he is twelve or younger if male, or around fourteen if female. From that point until emancipation, it's pure profit. In other words, all things being equal, a child is a blessing in such a situation.

Once again, it is a matter of satisfying wants and needs. To know how many kids an individual family is going to have, we really only need to know these things: 1. How valuable is each child at each stage of life; and 2. What is the death rate among children in the culture. A third variable which only affects highly affluent societies is the cost of a child vs disposable income. I don't spell this out later, but I think it is pretty clear how it works.

Lets take a village family in rural India as our example. Lets say they are in the north of the country, where wheat is the principal crop, and even today much of the labor is performed by men and beasts. A boy child is a great prize in this culture. As previously mentioned, a boy will pay for himself in terms of work by the time he hits puberty, and the family may get a dozen years of labor beyond that before he marries and moves away. Where land is plentiful, there is every incentive to have as many boys as possible.

Girls, on the other hand, are not so valuable in this environment and level of technology. Just as there are vastly more oxen than cows in north India, there are many more men than we would predict. Girl babies simply haven't been surviving, in the same way that female calfs have a habit of dying. On the other hand, families have many more sons than are needed, because the family has to overshoot in case a male child dies young. Overpopulation results, of a peculiar shape, with too many people and too little land, and too many men, and not enough women. The predictable result is endemic warfare, and, indeed, the region has been awash in blood since the time of Gautama.

Technology has had two thoroughly surprising results in the region. First, the reduction in infant mortality has made the necessity to "overshoot" disappear. Second, the option of raising a second son (or daughter) and getting them education allowing for a profitable career has changed all the math. Every family still wants a son to carry on the family farm. But they also now want an extra son or two to go to college and enter into civil service, or move to America and open a Subway, or Seven-Eleven.

Back in the USA, abortion has been legal nationwide since Roe v Wade in 1972. In the peak years of the late 1980s, about 1.6 million abortions were being performed annually, or about 40 percent of total pregnancies. [Figures are from memory; I might be off a little. This really doesn't affect my argument.] Abortion and infanticide are no different, from a philosophical perspective; it is just a matter of choosing when to end the life. Given this what can we conclude of a culture which is killing almost half of its babies? One of two things must be true: Either the society is too poor to feed further mouths, or else the costs of child-rearing have risen to astronomical levels.

As the richest society in history, we obviously are not straining to feed the extra odd baby. But if you follow readers' Digest, at least once a year they run an article under the banner, "Cost of raising a child through college now over $250,000 (or some other large figure; the number isn't the point). The cost of raising a child today are not just economic, although there is that as well. There are also soccer games (and practices) to attend, giggling overnight parties without sleep, and a wedding with a crushing amount of responsibility and bills. Who would possibly want to subject themselves to that? Not Americans, is the answer.

Simultaneous with our loss of millions of potential productive citizens, we are outsourcing jobs to that Indian viallage and importing millions of undocumented immigrants. Both of these trends point in the same direction: In a very real sense, we are arbitraging expensive US babies for cheap foreign babies. Keep in mind my central theory of culture: This is a choice we have made on a cultural level, based upon the expectation that millions of mothers have made at the individual level.

Here in Asheville, we have had an explosion in the last decade of both the Hispanic population and Ukranians from the former Soviet Union. Like immigrants of the past (my grandfather Ehrsam swam ashore in New York harbor in 1905) they are thrifty, hard-working, and ask for nothing more than a chance at happiness. But there is a very real question, how would our present nation look if more than 40 million babies had been born, rather than aborted? What different policies might have been followed; what different results might have occurred?

I am certainly not a dogmatist on this issue. In general, I think abortion is a mistake. But I cannot divine the thoughts of the women who chose the procedure, nor can I refute the basic economic logic of the situation. When you look at our culture through the lens of my analysis, the question is not why so many abortions, but why so few? After all, most babies will not grow up to be Hedge Fund managers, or physicians, or NBA stars. Yet if that is not the case, there is no way that the average child can pay her own way. Until we see a dimpled cheek and a smile.

Peace to you all.

Rights, Part 2: A Brief History of the Right to Life

I am happy to finally post the second part of Kurt's series (I whined about it last night, here it is) on rights. I will try to post again myself, as soon as possible. I have been and continue to be very busy right now. I will also have to consider a good response to Kurt's series, something that provides an increasing challenge, as he continues the discussion.

In any case, I really appreciate his getting this to me, so soon after I (jokingly) whined about my sadness and increasingly rapt anticipation for this piece. . .Thank you Kurt.

In Part 1, we covered my general theory of culture and how rights have never been framed as absolutes until modern times. Today, we will look at how different cultures have interpreted the right to life.

If there is any inalienable right, it is the right to life. If you don't have that right, there is no good way to exercise any of the others. So if life is not an inalienable right, then no such thing as inalienable rights exist. I am going to tautologies here because this is an absolutely vital point for my argument: And there is no such thing as a blanket, overarching right to life.

Every known culture has rules for dealing with intra-group conflict and killing. But there is a catch: It only applies to those within the group, and not everyone in the culture is even defined as being in the group. Arctic peoples used to leave behind the elderly and disabled when they moved camps; in a similar vein, Herodotus lists several Mediterranean cultures which killed people who reached retirement age. Most cultures have practiced some form of abortion or infanticide, usually infanticide since abortions had the unpleasant side-effect of frequently killing the mother. Jews and Roma (Gypsy) in Europe have been defined by the fact that they possess little or no rights.

The Sixth Commandment famously says, "Thou shalt not kill," but the word in Hebrew means murder, not kill. If you kill the servant or slave of someone else, that is dealt with separately, and is only a monetary fine. Most Greek states allowed the abandonment of infants. The story of Oedipus is not atypical: His feet were pierced through with a bronze spike and then he was abandoned in the countryside.

Things changed a bit with the advent of Christian rule. Infanticide could now be punished by death. However, it almost never was. The general practice was termed "overlaying," in which the mother would "accidentally" roll over during the night and crush or suffocate the child. This accident occurred with alarming frequency throughout Europe and then Colonial America for a thousand years. Strangely, it occurred most often within families that could not support an extra mouth.

Approaching modern times, cultures increasingly adopted Death by Institution. In early 19th Century France, for instance, mothers could drop their babies off at foundling hospitals, workhouses or orphanages. The mothers surely knew that the infant stood a less than ten percent change of surviving their first year. As one contemporary put it, "These mothers know their [ie, the child's] fate as surely as if they dropped them in the river." These proved so popular that institutions in French cities invented the revolving "deposit box" to ease late-night dropoffs. Think about that the next time you go to a drive-through.

In the 20th Century, the Third Reich adopted a special diet devoid of fat for inmates of mental hospitals; they could thus provide useful work almost up to the moment of death. In Ireland, the last Magdalene House closed in 1996. Placement in both Nazi insane asylums and the Magdalene Houses were almost entirely voluntary, with the approval of the families.

All of these are examples of what cultures did to their own people. Imagine how they felt about outsiders. Even here in the US, we have groups that define various other groups as racially inferior, believe in race purity, and teach that not just cultures but cultural groups should be kept strictly segregated. A video appeared on Youtube recently which purported to show a white vigilante shooting an illegal immigrant near the Mexican border. The video was a hoax, but the message was clear. And not unusual.

Let's move on to the death penalty. The US is a world leader in judicial executions. The state of Texas recently petitioned a judge to not allow DNA testing that might exonerate a man who has already been executed. Might bring bad publicity, donchaknow. For most of Western History, the only curb on capital punishment was that Ecclesial Courts did not have capital authority (hence the Benefit of Clergy; the first murder was free). However, the Church could and did turn "heretics" over to the civil authorities, who were under no such restrictions.

There is one constant in all of this: Life has been incredibly cheap throughout human history. Infant mortality was high. Peasants are fungible. Even noble families sufferred their losses in silence. In Tudor England, a man was supposed to "Make a good death," part of a cult of death that has lingered since neolithic times, if not before. Thus, Charles I wore two shirts to his beheading, because he did not want people to see him shiver and think he was afraid.

Where in all of this is the Right to Life? Obviously, it is not. We recognize such a right today, but not for everybody, and purely for our own purposes. It still doesn't mean that we always provide needed medical care for those who cannot afford it, or shelter to the homeless woman in danger of freezing. And life is still cheap: How much per life for Bhopal, for instance? How much should the cigarette makers be forced to pay? How long should a hospital be required to run a ventilator for a man with no insurance?

No, there is no Right to Life. Fortunately, that is not altogether bad. I'll try to get Part 3 posted soon.

The Culture of Disrespect for Life

I want to thank Beth, of Five Ft Three, for writing a guest post response to my post about our rights to control our own bodies. I will probably respond in comments, when I have a chance, possibly even write a post in response, but for now, I leave it to everyone else. I would add again, I am accepting guest posts , including responses to the posts on this site.

From Beth's blog;
Some things you cannot change, ones height for example. Some things you can change, like people's minds. I would prefer not to be so short, but what can I do? Nothing! But maybe I can enlighten someone in my ramblings.


I am pro-life. Generally being pro-life means of course against abortion, and against the death penalty. But it means even more than that to me, it means having respect for all human life, from natural conception to natural death and everyone in between. I feel that many issues today that are becoming mainstream sort of ideas however are leaning towards a disrespect for life, and it is a disturbing trend for me.

This spiraling downward of respect of course started when Roe v Wade made abortion legal. Yes, I do realize that women were having abortions before January 22, 1973, however when something is legalized the stigma is gone and the whole process becomes rather socially acceptable. I say that attitude is unacceptable. Once we decided that a human life has no value because it is still developing within his mother’s womb, I think we started justifying all sorts of valuations on other people’s lives.

Take Terri Schiavo, many people said her life was worthless, because she was disabled. She was not the person her husband had married, and so judges and lawyers starting justifying ending this woman’s life, and not even in a humane way.

Then there are harden criminals, even some pro-life people justify their killing since they are not innocent. The devaluing of that criminal’s life is justified because of his or her crime.

Then we come to embryonic stem cell research, and suddenly a human life is made into a commodity (oh look, it DOES have value) but it is destroyed then in the name of science. Well of course we must justify this, we are saving people’s lives (or improving their lives) EXCEPT that we do it at the expense of another’s AND adult stem cells are a very viable option so I don’t understand why destroy life if not needed.

Now in DuWayne’s first posting to his new blog, he talked about assisted suicide, and although this disrespect for life is self-inflicted unlike the others, it still says we think there are lives not worth living.

The culture of disrespect for life isn’t just about ending lives, but also about not respecting the lives of the people we interact with every. DuWayne has brought up his own difficulty of growing up with ADHD, and how people who didn’t understand it made his life very difficult. People on the streets, well they are treated as bums, and why don’t they just get a job? That is devaluing a life and being disrespectful. I even fault fellow pro-lifers who parade pictures of aborted babies to make their point, talk about disrespect to that child! I prefer to show the amazing pictures from an ultrasound to show life in a beautiful and positive way.

So basically do I fault Roe v Wade for the shift in our thinking? Yes, I do. We have to stop justifying and assessing values on human lives and treat all people with the respect that we all would like ourselves.