Follow Me on Facebook

 

May 2012
S M T W T F S
« Mar    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
BlogWithIntegrity.com

Helping Your Kids Combat Homophobia on The National Day of Silence

Today is the 2009 National Day of Silence, a day to protest bullying and harassment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people in schools. Begun in 1996 as a student protest at the University of Virginia, it has grown to participation by over 8,000 middle and high school, colleges and universities, throughout the U.S.  While the central act is a period of silence, today's activities draw attention both to the prevalence of anti-LGBT attacks in schools but also to entrenched homophobia among students and the silence on the part of society concerning it.

At 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time this afternoon I logged on to a Tweetchat of Day of Silence supporters. The feed was flooded with young people talking about how events had gone in their schools, how their teachers responded to their refusal to speak, whether they had been harassed for being LGBT or just being perceived as being LGBT. They talked about coming out to their parents and they talked about being afraid to. And this was on Twitter so this pain and anger and support and kinship all came in bursts of 140 characters. There were also allies like me in the chat – people who support the students and many who shared their own memories of being too afraid in school to be who they are.

Carl Walker-Hoover would have turned twelve years old today. However, after a school year of being bullied for "acting gay," Carl committed suicide last week. Reading about Carl's final note, leaving his Pokemon cards to his little brother, I could not help but think of my own boys his age. One of my sons loves the color pink and has taken a good bit of teasing for wearing the color whenever he can. My boys have also told me about how the word "gay" has, in the years between my childhood and theirs, become synonymous with "bad," "ugly," and "uncool."

My kids know lots of adults who are gay and we have had the discussion many times about how wrong it is use "gay" as an insult. But it is hard for them to share their feelings about this with their friends. Today I found a few videos at ThinkB4YouSpeak which provide some clear tips called "Don't Be Afraid to Tell Someone it's Not OK to Say That's So Gay."  I highly recommend them.

So with my kids we talk and, while I don't think they are old enough to hear about Carl Walker-Hoover's suicide, we have watched the ThinkB4YouSpeak videos.  We role play dealing with things friends say and do that is not okay.

What do you do at your house? How do you discuss homophobia and bullying at your house? Let's share our thoughts and ideas in the hope we will raise a generation of people who can proudly be whoever they are. Let's make sure there are no more children who feel the pain Carl Walker-Hoover did.

When is Breastfeeding Rights Legislation a Bad Thing?

When it does not create or protect the right of a woman to breastfeed.  When is breastfeeding rights legislation a really really bad thing? When it makes it even more difficult for a woman to breastfeed than if there were no law at all.  And this really really bad thing is what is happening in North Dakota.

Witness the sad journey of North Dakota Senate Bill 2344.  As originally introduced this past January, SB 2344 amended the North Dakota crimes code to exclude breastfeeding from all forms of indecent conduct, and created a new section of the state civil rights law making discrimination on the basis of breastfeeding prohibited both in public accommodations and in the workplace.  North Dakota would go from being one of a handful of states with no law protecting breastfeeding to having one of the strongest laws.  But then the bill made a trip into the North Dakota Senate Human Services Committee where on February 16th SB 2344 was completely gutted.  The Committee removed the entire section of the bill which would have created a civil right – therefore removing the only mechanism for enforcing any protection the bill would have created.  The Committee also removed the section creating a right to pump breast milk in the workplace.

But the Committee did not just remove vital portions of SB 2344, it added a few words too:  "discreetly" and "if the woman acts in a discreet and modest manner."  So instead of a new section in the civil rights code, the bill adds this to the health code (therefore without any penalty for violation):

Right to breastfeed. If the woman acts in a discreet and modest manner, a woman may breastfeed her child in any location, public or private, where the woman and child are otherwise authorized to be.

So who decides what is a discreet and modest manner?  You?  Me?  The owner of the public accommodation?  The police?  The mother?  The bill does not say.  So who will it be?  Whoever doesn't want a woman to breastfeed in public.  After all, if a woman is breastfeeding in a restaurant and the owner orders her to stop or leave, the final arbiter of whether the mother is arrested for trespass is the police.  Will the police officer watch the woman breastfeed to determine whether she is breastfeeding in a discreet and modest manner?  Will he rely on the owner for that determination?  Will witnesses be interviewed?

And what does "discreet and modest manner" mean?  Visible skin?  Visible areola a/k/a the Facebook test?  A flash of nipple (I think I'll call this the "Janet Jackson test")?  Anyone who has breastfed a child knows that a woman's control over these factors in any given nursing session with any particular child is pretty limited.  Any person with breasts can probably understand that a large (pun intended) determining factor in one's ability to control the occasional flash is breast size.

The amended SB 2344 isn't just vague, ambiguous, and totally lacking in protections.  Unlike any breastfeeding law to date, North Dakota's SB 2344 arguably makes some public breastfeeding a crime.  How? With that tricky word "discreetly."  Rather than excluding breastfeeding from the crime of "indecent exposure" as so many other states do, SB 2344 amends the criminal law as follows:

The act of a woman discreetly breastfeeding her child is not a violation of this section.

So does that mean that a woman breastfeeding "indiscreetly" is in violation of the indecent exposure statute?  To my knowledge, no woman in North Dakota (or anywhere else – and I have been following this for years) has ever been charged with indecent exposure for breastfeeding.  Under North Dakota's existing indecent exposure law, the prohibited conduct is:

A person, with intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify that person's lust, passions, or sexual desires, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if that person:
a. Masturbates in a public place or in the presence of a minor; or
b. Exposes one's penis, vulva, or anus in a public place or to a minor in a public or private place.

Not conduct easily confused with breastfeeding.  So excluding "discreetly" breastfeeding must mean that indiscreetly breastfeeding, whatever that might mean, is indecent exposure, right?

I have heard the argument that something is better than nothing.  Hey, North Dakota has no law concerning breastfeeding so this is better than nothing, right?  Wrong. This law offers breastfeeding women nothing – no protection against harassment and discrimination when in public, no rights or protections in the workplace – and it explicitly limits the way in which breastfeeding in public is to be done, possibly even to the point of creating a crime.  This particular "something" is most definitely worse than nothing.

Babies as Commodities: Will the Suleman Octuplets Be the Next Dionnes?

In a dark chapter of Canadian history, the Dionne quintuplets were a more popular tourist attraction than Niagara Falls.  Back in 1934, the first known surviving quintuplets involved no reproductive technology – ethical or unethical.  The Dionne girls were the product of one egg, fertilized during sexual intercourse, splitting into five embryos.  What happened after they were born was a different matter and this is where the parallel to the Suleman octuplets begins.

The Dionnes were poor uneducated farmers who already struggled to support their five living older children (a sixth had died).  The Ontario government made the Dionne girls wards of the state and put a staff in charge of their care, which, in accord with the science of the day, meant isolation from germs, including those which might be carried by the girls' mother with whom they were allowed minimal contact.

Back to the Sulemans. If you want to find criticism of how these children came to be, it is everywhere. I too will watch the investigation of the fertility specialist who implanted all of these fertilized eggs and the medical specialty now scrambling to prove it can police itself.  Nadya Suleman chose to have all of these children while the Dionnes did not.  But the Suleman children did not chose how they were made any more than the Dionne girls did.  And the Suleman children will not be able to control the way they may now be exploited any more than the Dionne girls could.

Looking at The Suleman Family Website [available in the morning of 2/16, by evening this site was down]  and reading about public relations reps. and reality shows, I am reminded of Quintland.  Between 1934 and 1943, an estimated three million tourists visited this Depression-era theme park in northern Ontario where these five little girls lived on display like zoo animals.  The Ontario government and local business made a half billion dollars from this circus, little of which came to the girls.  When, after nine years of litigation, the girls were returned to their family, they were sexually abused by their father who also marketed products with their name and image.  Still the public was more interested in owning a Dionne Quintuplet doll, than protecting the Dionne girls themselves.

The Dionne quintuplets should serve as a cautionary tale but fetishizing multiples continues.  Not lost on the surviving Dionnes themselves, they wrote an "Open Letter" in 1997 to the parents of another set of multiples.  It is a document which should be read by Nadya Suleman, and the Duggers, and Jon & Kate.  It is a plea from three old women whose lives, and those of the two sisters who predeceased them, were destroyed by the greed and prurience of family and community:

Multiple births should not be confused with entertainment, nor should they be an opportunity to sell products.

Now, who should be responsible for taking care of the Suleman children?  We all should, just as we all should be responsible for all children.  But there are people who bear a greater responsibility for these fourteen kids (yes, I mean all of Nadya's children) than I do and I think they should be ahead of me in line when the orthodontia bill needs to be paid. Of course, Nadya herself, who somehow thought money and child care would fall from the heavens to maintain her baby habit. But behind her, let's put the man who provided the sperm if indeed he either supported or did not forbid its use to make all of these children. Let's follow the sperm donor with all the medical personnel who were involved in the implantations.  Why should any of these people be allowed to remain aloof from the consequences of their actions?  If you are going to play a role in creating a baby, you should change diapers, buy food, pay bills, schedule and attend doctors visits (I am guessing a lot of doctors' visits).  Any idea of the time commitment involved in occupational therapy alone?  I do.  Alot. Nadya Suleman has one autistic child.  How many of the newest eight will have special needs?

I don't condemn Nadya Suleman for having children without being married or having a mate.  I don't condemn her for being unemployed.  If she hadn't been unemployed before she had kids, she likely would have been either unemployed or underemployed after she had kids.  In the U.S. there is very little support (economic or other) for mothers. I will condemn her if she exploits her kids.

I condemn both her and the medical professionals who took her money for treating children like just one more thing you can buy.  The Suleman octuplets came into the world as commodities, sold to a compulsive shopper by greedy technicians more concerned with selling the product than the physical or psychological well-being of anyone involved.

How about now we turn our attention to making sure these children, and all children, are well cared for.  One way we can do that is by refusing to watch the reality show or buy the octuplet-endorsed diapers.  Just say no. Let's turn our attention to all mothers who need help supporting their children and discourage parents from supporting large families by selling them.  Babies aren't just more stuff.  And parents have to be something better than pimps.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...