Returning

How things have changed in six months, and my, how they are still the same.

Divorce is a long, ugly, painful process. I am still getting divorced. It is a soul-sucking process. Some days I wake up and marvel that there is still any light in my being. But then I think that fire is a purifying element. I am walking through hell, and will emerge stronger, distilled, free. Even this, as awful as it is, is better than what I was living in for years.

But I don't want this space to only be tears and woe. I am multifaceted, and there is much joy and beauty in my daily life. So I will still post about food and knitting and yoga and school (I am finally back in school - my life on my terms!!) and kids and politics and triumphantly crow from this soapbox.

So pull up a chair, let's brew a pot of tea and chat. Welcome back.

Activism, Advocacy, Ethics, and How to not be an Asshole

So an advocate, and activist  and an asshole walk into a bar... There is no punchline here, just my growing realization  that there is such a huge difference between advocacy and activism. I think our society is really getting these two activities confused. Everyone likes to think they make good choices in life. Some people even like their choices so  much that they want everyone else to make those same choices, regardless of whether those choices are a good fit for those other people's lives.

The difference for me lies withing the expectation of the A-person. An advocate seeks to inform, educate and most importantly, EMPOWER others to make well-researched decisions based on balanced, unbiased data. An activist most often seeks to have everyone make the decision that they, the activist agree with, regardless of the individual circumstances of the decision-maker. A lack of ethics leads activists to masquerade as advocates. A perfect example of this would be a Crisis Pregnancy center (anti-choice activism) giving a woman false information regarding the safety of abortion - they are giving information, but it is not the kind  of data that an empowered decision can be made from.  

One step farther from misguided activism is just plain being an asshole - bullying, derisive  behavior meant to demonize those who are 'other'. Clinic protesters, 'intactivists' who post abusive Internet comments, sanctimonious parents who pity children born in a different manner than the way their children were born.  These behaviors do nothing to further a cause, and most often alienate the very people that are trying to be reached. 

I've come to believe that if I feel so strongly about  an issue that I can no longer advocate - that is, detach my self from an outcome I disagree with, it is time to move to useful activism. That is, taking concrete steps to change the cultural and societal framework, or legality of the issue at hand. For example, I truly believe that routine infant circumcision is not a 'choice' for a parent to make. I find it disturbing that my daughter's rights to bodily integrity are protected but my son's rights are not. So instead of being an asshole online, or in person, I do what I can to change the laws regarding male genital mutilation. And until certain frameworks are changed, I advocate by sharing information about the issue. Because until the larger societal issues are addressed (think formula company lobbies and parental leave in regards to breastfeeding, myths regarding male cleanliness and prepuce function for  MGM, hospital maternity policies driven by liability rather than informed consent in birth), individuals should not be crucified for making decisions based on bad information, habit, or pure survival. 

These are  really large issues, enough to make my head spin. I think though, moving forward as an advocate and an educator, it's important for me to reflect and examine these issues carefully. 

Taxation

Health-care reform is hot hot hot right now. Lots swirling about whether or not people's taxes will be used to fund abortion. This makes me spit. Abortion is a LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE. There would be much gnashing of teeth if an amendment were proposed banning the use of public dollars for vasectomy. Or angioplasty. I could perhaps see putting restrictions on purely elective abortion coverage - in the same way non-cancerous mole removal are generally not covered by public (and some private) insurance. But to not cover a medically-necessary procedure, be it abortion or chemotherapy, is unconscionable.

Why is it the same people who scream and stamp their feet about a (gasp) government take-over of health care are so eager to see the government involved in women's health care? Why are these things not left to women and their doctors? Not to mention why those who decry government involvement in anything want the government to tell a whole population that they can't get married (oh wait different post).

Look at it this way: millions of Americans find abortion morally reprehensible, and they believe their tax dollars should not go to pay for something they find morally reprehensible. I find pre-emptive war morally reprehensible, as do millions of others. Why should my tax money be used to pay for that? I'd love to know that my taxes didn't go to the war. But this is not how the system works, folks.

Abortion is legal. It needs to be kept legal. And women who are on public health care should not be made pawns in these political games. Legal, medical procedures that a doctor deems necessary should be covered by insurance. Period.