Being Amber Rhea

God forbid, you can’t normalize and legitimize icky prostitution that I have such a personal moral problem with, because then…

-oh wait. Because then, stuff like this might not happen.

Well then.

As Kim said at Ren’s…

Popular opinion: Hooker murders are icky, grisly, and wrong, because, well, murder is wrong but … well, thank goodness it was “just” a whore. No big whoop, right? And, well, that’s what she gets, you know? I mean, that’s just part of the risks of being a skanky ho.

This has me so pissed off right now. What the hell is wrong with people?

This “Well, thank goodness just a _____ died and not, like, a real normal, GOOD person” attitude strikes a real sore spot with me.

ETA: Oh, and also… don’t bother reading the comments on the Bastard Logic thread. Trust me.

My feelings on the bit of it I (regrettably) skimmed echo what GallingGalla said at The Curvature:

The comment thread on the bastard.logic story made me sick. A bunch of men (and especially one guy) making every excuse in the book for why the “sentence” was justified — probably enough to create a “hating on sex workers” bingo card.

Speaking of The Curvature, thanks to Cara for also posting about this on Feministe.

Well, Creative Loafing finally ran my letter to the editor. Ken Edelstein has a snarky response, which is easy material for those who enjoy fisking and playing “Spot the Logical Fallacy.” I typically don’t enjoy these pastimes, but in this case I can make quick work of a few of the most glaring eye-rollers.

1. “Organizers also asked Nouraee not to expose names and identities of those attending the meeting.”

Well, since I was one of the organizers, I’ll tell you what we actually said. Before the program began, we asked that members of the press not reveal anyone’s name or personal information without their explicit permission. We said that any individual should definitely feel free to agree to an interview; we simply asked that they step away from the program to do it, so as not to disturb others. (E.g., Caitlin was interviewed that night and included in another piece.) So this line about “Wah, he wasn’t allowed to expose anything!” is really stupid and easy to see through.

2. “Later, Nouraee tracked down a woman who was involved directly in an incident with Gower, and he quoted that woman, Cheryl Courtney-Evans, extensively in the article.”

Extensively? Go back and check the article again, Ken. I wouldn’t call a few lines, preceded by several paragraphs devoted to Gower on his nasty soapbox, “extensive.” Give me a break.

Edelstein closes with this, which I guess he intends to be a real zinger:

3. “Another point worth considering: Gower, whom Rhea describes as homophobic, is openly gay.”

You know, people make dumbass arguments like this one all the time, and yet every time I see it, I’m still amazed. (Several commenters on the original CL story trotted it out like a beacon of truth, and were properly taken to task by other commenters.) Gower is openly gay. And?

Just because you’re gay, doesn’t mean you can’t be homophobic. Arguments like this one show a profound lack of understanding of the way privilege and prejudice operate in our society. If you grow up in this society, no matter what your race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, class, etc., you internalize a degree of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and classism because these things operate on a structural level. (Which is why we can’t successfully fight against and dismantle them until we acknowledge them within ourselves.) Sure, Gower probably doesn’t sit up nights entertaining a bunch of consciously homophobic thoughts like, “Hey, I really hate faggots!” Because that’s not how it works. Whatever thoughts he may or may not have are irrelevant. His actions speak for themselves.

This is the same stupid shit as when people say, “I can’t be racist, some of my best friends are black!” Are you fucking kidding me?

And, anyway, let’s just allow for a minute that maybe Gower isn’t homophobic. Maybe he’s done all kinds of examining of societal conditioning and is totally not affected at all by it anymore. Again… so what?? He’s still an asshole, and an extremely dangerous one at that. So I don’t know what this triumphant “He’s gay!” declaration is supposed to prove.

Overall, CL’s continued defense of Gower is puzzling… -well, okay, not really. I don’t think many of us still buy into their self-proclaimed “alternative” status.

Update: Christ on a cracker. I just noticed the letters to the editor page has comments. The good news? A few of the comments there are sensible. The bad/annoying/hilarious (depending on my mood) news? Check out this comment:

Sex Worker Article Comment - It seems that Rhea has a uninformed image of prostitution. A life of a prostitute is nothing like what is portrayed in the movie Pretty Woman. Most prostitution is tragic and the people selling their bodies would probably rather be doing something better with their lives. Tragically, Rhea romanticizes the world of prostition. Internet images and radical ideologies due more harm than good for our public health. She needs to step away from the internet to see the world. She obviously hasnot seen families torn apart due to prostitution. It is very tragic.

Oh, this person knows me so well!

Also, ten points for using the loathsome, worn out, and wholly inaccurate term “selling their bodies.” NEXT!

The new issue of Creative Loafing is out, and they didn’t run my letter to the editor. (I had gotten an email from someone on their staff saying they might run it, which is why I waited before posting anything here.) So here it is. Later I might do a follow-up post where I expand on some of the points and include some other points that I had to cut out in order to keep it around 500 words.

—

I’m writing to express my disappointment with the 1.16.08 feature, “One man’s battle against Midtown prostitutes and their johns,” by Andisheh Nouraee.

There are two separate matters here. The first, and most obvious, is that Gower and Denby are dangerous vigilantes. I am glad that their deplorable tactics are being exposed.

It should go without saying that posting videos of sex workers on YouTube is a horrible idea. What is the goal? Sex workers - especially street prostitutes - are disproportionately the targets of violent crime. Violent criminals target sex workers because they know they can get away with it. (In fact, this was the exact justification given by Gary Ridgway, who was convicted of the murders of over 40 prostitutes.) Gower’s dehumanization of sex workers through his behavior and language perpetuates the cultural mores that make such violence acceptable.

But I am also disappointed with Nouraee’s treatment of the issue. Nouraee learned about Gower’s harassment of street workers at an event I helped organize at Charis Books, commemorating the 5th annual International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers. After the program, he spoke with the other two organizers and me and expressed interest in learning more and possibly doing a story.

Nouraee sat through our program that night and listened as people recounted individual encounters with Gower, citing Gower’s blatant homophobia and transphobia. He listened as we discussed the glaring absence of sex workers’ voices in the media, as well as the fact that when sex workers are mentioned in the media, they are either troublemakers or victims - in other words, they’re not people; they’re useful objects in making a point and reinforcing a stereotype.

He spoke with several sex workers that night and a few weeks later, while doing research for this story. He expressed concern about making sure to include sex workers’ voices.

If Nouraee tried to speak with street prostitutes in Midtown and they did not want to speak to him, he could have mentioned it in the article. Reporters do this all the time (”so-and-so declined to comment”). If that were the case, he could also reflect on why sex workers might be wary of talking to a reporter. Could it be because they’re tired of having their words (and existence) twisted to fit whatever agenda is at hand?

Nouraee fails as an investigative reporter with this piece, especially as one for a paper that claims to be alternative. Terms like “transvestitute” and “real female” go unchallenged and uncorrected. Nouraee does not probe Gower about why Gower is so fixated on harassing prostitutes. He does not examine how the criminalization of prostitution perpetuates the violence that many people associate with street prostitution. He does not discuss the societal and economic conditions that lead to many transpeople working on the streets.

For people who are interested in learning more about sex workers’ rights activism, some good sources of information are SWOP-USA, Desiree Alliance, COYOTE and $pread Magazine.

I am so angry I can barely see straight.

I’ve already Twittered about it. I will blog about it eventually. But I need to wait until my hands stop shaking, my heart stops pounding, and my stomach stops doing somersaults.

You want to know why I’m burned out on activism? Perfect fucking example.

Holy shit holy shit holy shit.

More to come, eventually. But right now, I need a DISTRACTION in a big way.

The bad (awful, horrible, heart-wrenching) news it that on December 10, blogger and sex worker Razor Mick was stabbed six times and left for dead in a dumpster.

The good news (well, good given the situation) is that as of December 28, Razor Mick has been moved out of the ICU, and it’s looking like she’s going to make a full physical recovery.

It seems crass to remark on the closeness of this attack to the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, but the proximity of the dates did enter my mind as my stomach lurched.

Please keep Razor Mick in your thoughts, prayers, or whatever other goodwill-invoking mechanisms you prefer. Feel free to stop by her blog to leave some words of support, as her friends are passing all supportive messages along to her.

[Via Ren]

Why do I laugh in that not-so-funny kind of way whenever I see anti-prostitution/anti-porn crusaders supporting yet another law, program, or “vice crack-down” tactic purported to end the great societal evil that is the sex industry? Well, here’s one example of why, from Deborah Jeane Palfrey (also known as the D.C. Madam):

These cops — the vice cops, you know, the lowest on the food chain at the police department — they love to go after defenseless women. You know, it’s, it’s… It is something that I want to explore when this is all over — when my actual civil/criminal case is all over. I am even talking to some folks right now about putting together a documentary on what the police have done, do, and will continue to do to defenseless women in this country involved in the sex industry.

The very first person who emailed me when this all broke was a woman. And the subject header was: “My mother is an ex-madam.” She went on to explain who she was, and the terror that she, her mother, and her family experienced at the hands of the police. This particular email was followed up by many many others, all having their own little monikers. Some were very well-known madams who have stories to tell that will make your blood curdle.

And that’s why it gets ten times not funnier when it’s self-identified feminists signing on to support anti-prostitution legislation. What’s a little hypocrisy, in the grand scheme of things? We can overlook misogyny for the good of The Cause (as long as it only affects those women).

Oh, but I forgot, sex workers are Teh Patriarchy™’s darlings. Riiiiiight.

On a somewhat related note, write to Admin.ceos@usdoj.gov by Sept. 10th to oppose the proposed changes to Section 2257. Include in the subject line: Docket No.Crm104. The changes wouldn’t stop child porn, but they would put legal porn performers at risk for harassment and abuse (of which they already experience more than there fair share, from the public at large).

…And “right-wing whiners” isn’t exactly apt, but I can’t think of a snappy description that doesn’t involve at least five adjectives, including references to stunted adolescence… ah, anyway, onto the point:

No fat jokes, no racist/stripper-bashing jokes, no sexist dumb blonde jokes, no misogynist (no, dumbass, “misogynist” is not a -joke-, not an -insult-, that is a -description-. “Dumbass” -is- an insult, yes, genius, very good), transphobic “Mann Coulter” jokes? Butbutbut then -where’s the funny in life?-

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Also: FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH ZOMG HELP HELP I’M BEING OPPRESSED!!!111!!eleven

Nobody’s listening, and I’m feeling incredibly distressed. And now they’re talking about Melissa Gira needs a “smack-down” - without even taking the time to read the first thing about her or anything she’s written. Well FUCK YOU. Yes, YOU. People I thought I trusted are showing their asses BIG TIME and I’m disgusted with it. And no I am not linking to the thread in question, and too damn bad if you want to cry about it. Go cry to someone who gives a shit, because I am past caring.

…Post about last night’s Social Media Club event coming. It will be ranty. But, overall, I am really trying to stay positive, because there is a lot to be excited about! And don’t worry I’m not seriously seething with anger or letting it consume me or anything. BUT:

People on that thread I’m alluding to here? Fuck right off unless you want to actually LISTEN. (And yes, some of ‘em on that thread DO want to listen. But not all. Not by a longshot.) I do NOT like feeling backed into a corner.

[Seriously, possible trigger here.]

Excuse me? No charges will be filed. On this.

…But yeah, feminism is quaint and unnecessary. There’s no such thing as a “rape culture,” why do those hairy feminazis keep making up such stupid terms?

A couple days ago, I wrote an op-ed in response to this AJC article. Since I haven’t heard back from them and it’s almost Friday, I’m guessing they’re not going to run it. So, I’ll just post it here.

Note: if you feel like there are points and angles I didn’t address - you’re right. That’s what sucks about having to stay within a certain word count. In order to get it under 700 words, I had to cut out an entire section about economic need, for example.

—

Shaming tactics not effective against prostitution

Currently, the Atlanta Police Department’s Web site includes mug shots of women convicted of prostitution and escorting without a permit (”City adviser: ‘Johns’ get too little scrutiny,” Metro, May 21). This tactic is dangerous and ignorant.

Sex workers are disproportionately the victims of violent crime, especially rape and sexual assault. The concept of shame perpetuates the widespread view of sex workers as disposable. Further, the illegality of their profession prevents sex workers from reporting violence perpetrated against them.

How does posting their mug shots benefit women arrested for prostitution? Even if we assume that a woman may be successfully “shamed” out of sex work by having her photo posted, she is still an open target for potential harm by anyone who sees her photo, since the mug shots remain on the Web site for 3 to 6 months.

The current debate, however, does not address the dangers of women’s mug shots being publicly displayed, nor does it advocate for the photos’ removal. Instead, the conversation is centered on the question of why there aren’t any photos of johns on the Web site.

Some cities have adapted a tactic of “shaming” johns by posting their photos online, on television, or on billboards. Stephanie Davis, the mayor’s policy adviser on women’s issues, believes this would be a good solution in Atlanta. But will it work?

In 2005, Oakland, California launched a campaign called Operation Shame, with the same goal as that which Davis suggests for Atlanta. The Oakland campaign displayed johns’ photos on 10 by 22 feet billboards.

After eight months, the billboards disappeared amid protests from constitutional rights activists. The prostitution rate in Oakland did not fluctuate.

Proponents of “end demand” programs claim that these campaigns reduce prostitution without harm to sex workers, deterring men from purchasing sexual services. According to Norma Hotaling of SAGE (Standing Against Global Exploitation), the developer of San Francisco’s John School program, 98% of men going through the program were “rehabilitated.” However, a 2002 study published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology found that such programs have little or no long-term deterrent effect.

In many cases, these programs exemplify misplaced good intentions fraught with paternalism. In the late 1990s, Vancouver stopped arresting street prostitutes and began focusing on johns. The rationale behind the change was that the johns were predators, and the prostitutes were victims. But Andrew Sorfleet, a sex worker and founder of SWAV (Sex Workers’ Alliance of Vancouver), disagrees. He points out that the real predators are men who pretend to be clients in order to rape, beat, or rob sex workers, and adds that the campaign was motivated by “the misconception that sex workers need to be ‘rescued’ - with or without our consent.”

Besides, the idea that shame will discourage a non-desirable behavior isn’t realistic. This is the fundamental flaw behind Davis’s proposal. She believes that posting johns’ photos online “would contribute to the shame that any man who buys sex should feel.”

Adults paying for sexual services from other adults should not be a crime. As the Oakland example shows, shaming does not deter people from paying for or accepting payment for sex. It just makes people stealthier and drives activity further underground, thereby elevating the risk to all involved.

The double standard is at work here - the concept that women who sell sexual services are worthy of public contempt, but the men who pay for those services are not. Davis seeks to address this inequity, but her motivations are based on an assumption that any participation in the sex industry - whether as client or service provider - is contemptible.

In all of this, though, there is one very important set of voices that is missing: the voices of actual sex workers. Policy advisers, APD officials, and op-ed writers can talk ad infinitum about what should or shouldn’t happen. But the people we most need to hear from are the ones whom these policies actually affect on a day to day basis.

Holy shit.

I just got an email from Matthew Cardinale, editor of Atlanta Progressive News (and, incidentally, one of our first Mostly ITP interviewees). He was fucking stabbed while walking in Midtown. And the attendant at the Exxon station that he ran into afterward, asking for help, ignored him and refused to call 911, even though he was bleeding from the abdomen due to a 4-cm deep wound.

I’m reprinting the email in full; you can also read the story on APN’s web site.

APN Editor Recovers from Stabbing in Atlanta’s Midtown

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor, Atlanta Progressive News (May 19, 2007)

(APN) ATLANTA - APN News Editor released the following statement today:

Dear APN Friends and Readers,

I am writing to share with you a tragic incident which occurred this Tuesday.

I was stabbed in an attempted robbery only two blocks from my house in Midtown, Atlanta, as I was walking to the Exxon gas station on the corner of Monroe Drive and Ponce de Leon Avenue.

I’m okay now as far as we know, and recovering from the wound. I stopped bleeding Wednesday night finally, and was able to take small steps at the John Edwards dinner on Thursday.

It is important to share what happened not only as it relates to my experience and recovery, but so people understand the violent dangers which abound in Midtown.

I now believe there is an unspoken crime wave in my area of Midtown, one the powers that be in the City do not want you to know about. Rep. Thomas says she believes the wave is City-wide.

I was walking to the store down Monroe Drive, as two young Black men came toward me, looking kind of rough the way they were walking.

Both of the men were about 21 years of age I would guess. What was also suspicious was they were on opposite sides of the street, although it was clear they were walking together. They were walking at the same pace. One was wearing a white t-shirt.

I tried to walk around the guy on my side of the street. He blocked me by going left when I went left, towards the street. I then went right and he mumbled something.

“What?”

“Give me your wallet,” he said as he seemed about to grab me and attack me. At this moment I looked and the other guy was now coming across the street to gang up on me.

“No!” I shouted, running into the street. There were no cars.

The young man on my side of the street then reached as if to try to grab me. I didn’t see a weapon. But at that point he apparently stabbed me in right side of my abdomen. They didn’t get the wallet.

I ran to the Exxon gas station. “I’ve been stabbed! Please call 911!”

The Exxon attendant ignores me and continues to help the lady in front of me.

“Are you going to call 911?”

“You can use the payphone outside.”

“Why can’t you call?”

“Our phone doesn’t work.” Yeah right.

So then I went running across the street-bleeding out of my abdomen-to the other gas station in order to get help.

The police came shortly followed by ambulance.

I have not followed up with the police yet to see if they found the perpetrators, but I doubt they did. They asked me what clothing they were wearing but all I could remember was the white t-shirt.

At Grady, they did an x-ray and found no problem. Decided not to do a Cat Scan. They looked inside the wound-which was horrible-and couldn’t see all the way down but said what they saw looked okay. They cleaned the wound.

They asked me to stay for 24 hours for observation but, hating hospitals, I replied I would observe myself, thank you.

Susan Keith, APN Board Member, and our friend, Tim Wood, came to the hospital.

I have been on pain medication and just resting a lot as the wound heels.

OBSERVATIONS

My first observation is that the stabbing had nothing to do with the attempted robbery.

In other words, it should’ve been clear that he was not going to get the wallet at that point, so stabbing me did not help him with his goal to get money (if that was his goal).

Thus, the preferred theory about this-that they were trying to get money for crack-is insufficient.

I believe, and many people have also suggested, I would’ve been stabbed even if I gave him the wallet probably. Rep. Thomas said she believes it’s part of a new culture of street violence where it’s not just enough to rob somebody, but the goal is to hurt another person.

My second observation is, you can’t assume you’re safe because you’re in a safer part of a mixed neighborhood. People can cross over into the other side by walking.

I urge people to use extreme caution. Stay away from borderline areas at night, particularly alone on foot. If something looks suspicious, please turn the other way and run. (Relatedly, don’t wear sandals.) I thought I had learned this lesson in New Orleans a few years ago, but when I moved here, I didn’t think Atlanta was like this. I’m certain now Atlanta’s worse.

I was worried even though I felt suspicious about these young men, that maybe I was wrong and I would hurt their feelings if I turn and ran. But here’s an idea, maybe I could’ve pretended to have gotten a really important phone call or something and then ran.

Also, as I’ve spoken with my neighbors about this, it turns out there are a lot more stories of attempted robberies and car breaks ins that I don’t even know about. And I live on a nice residential street. So, there’s more violence out there than many Atlantans might think, and only by having dialogue will we understand the nature of this problem.

My third observation is, Exxon needs to be held accountable. This is a community store. The fact they wouldn’t call 911 for me, when I got robbed on the way to their store, is an absolute collapse of the compassion one human being is supposed to have for another human being.

I may call a community protest of this Exxon store. Stay tuned for details.

My fourth observation, when I went to Grady the ER people said, “You’re lucky you’re a big guy.”

The wound was 4 centimeters deep.

Therefore, if I hadn’t put on some weight recently, I might have had serious organ damage from this wound.

Not exercising for a few months probably saved my life!

(Now that’s deep. No pun intended.)

Obviously, we’re still not sure if there was maybe a little organ damage they couldn’t see. But so far it’s been like 4 days with no strange signs.

I’m also a bit worried if maybe they stabbed someone with HIV before stabbing me, so I’ll be getting tested in a few months.

Atlanta Progressive News will continue. The news will not be stopped, although I hope our readers will understand if the publication of new stories slows a bit for the next week or so.

It’s obviously difficult to understand why a person would do something like this to another person. I wonder if it was mis-placed rage. I wonder if these young men were angry about poverty and inequality, about a messed up world where it seems there’s nothing you can do to change it.

Why can’t all this rage be channeled into something positive? Into voting and community organizing?

The guy who stabbed me doesn’t know, obviously, about any of that. What do we do about people in our society who seem so lost they’ve resorted to nonchalantly hurting people, cultivating a gangster image, at the risk of murdering another person?

Let’s spread the word about this and hold the proper people accountable. There are probably countless incidents like this that have been swept under the rug, and that cannot continue to happen.

Oh, but Kos says this kind of thing is no big deal, and just grow a pair already, jeeeeeez.

File under “This is not what free speech means.” That file’s getting pretty thick these days.

[Via Renegade Evolution]

The AJC’s Woman-to-Woman column is a steaming pile of shit. I’ve known this for several months, yet I admit I still sometimes visit it for the trainwreck factor. The latest debate* debacle, “Does what women wear contribute to sexual assault?”, is no exception.

I’m not going to waste my time or yours picking apart the asinine and disturbing blame-the-victim attitude the “right-leaning” columnist takes. Instead, I decided to have a go at one comment (by a person named Wiley) that I plucked from among its 500+ mostly-useless peers:

The focus needs to be on raising boys correctly. Not suppressing our daughters.

It starts with manners. Teach your boys early that it is NOT ok to verbally harrass a female you do not know. It is not OK to approach a female & comment on her body parts. It’s not ok to sleep with muliple women at the same time. It’s not ok to hire a women to dance naked at a college party, it does not make you a man. It makes you look like a fool.

First of all, let me say that from what I can tell, Wiley is one of the few commenters to leave truly thoughtful and sensible comments. So I’m not picking at him/her specifically (how could I, since I don’t even know who s/he is). From his/her comments I believe that s/he pretty much has the right idea, but I only point this out because I think there are plenty of people out there who have mostly the right idea.

Obviously the first sentence is spot-on. Recently I was reading a blog (unfortunately I don’t remember where, or I’d post a link) where a guy wrote about talking with some friends of his who were all relatively new fathers. Some of them were saying stuff like, they’re not going to let their daughters leave the house til they’re 30, because they don’t want them getting raped. The guy said, “If you don’t want your daughters to be raped, you should teach your sons not to rape” - and slowly watched the lightbulbs go on over their heads. So, in summation: yeah.

Now, as to the rest. Let me repeat, s/he has the right idea in general. But a few things stuck out at me.

[I]t is NOT ok to verbally harrass a female you do not know.

Probably just a typo, but that had me asking, “So, it’s okay to verbally harass a female as long as you know her?” I know, that one’s kind of nit-picky. Moving on.

It is not OK to approach a female & comment on her body parts.

No quarrel with this one. Obviously in terms of certain relationships, it’s a different story, but it’s pretty clear here that she’s not talking about those circumstances. E.g., you are not entitled to go up to any random woman and say shit like, “Hey, nice tits.”

It’s not ok to sleep with muliple women at the same time.

And that is where I put the brakes on. Reading along, and then… whoa! What? Which of these things is not like the others?

It bothers me that a lot of well-intentioned people conflate obviously abusive behavior such as verbal harassment with, well, having multiple sex partners. To me, it’s apples and oranges, the two don’t even come close to being in the same realm for comparison. But I understand that for a lot of people they are, because their ideas are based on a lot of underlying, unquestioned assumptions - ones that I held myself for a while, until I was in my late teens and began to really question and examine all that stuff.

The major difference here, of course, is agency. If a man verbally harasses a woman, she has had no choice in the matter. She didn’t invite him to harass her; he imposed his sense of entitlement on her. But as for having multiple sex partners? By that same logic, the women in the scenario are denied any agency - and that is the definition of objectification. (So yes, I am saying that Wiley’s statement objectifies women.) What is the assumption here? That the women in the scenario don’t want to have multiple partners? Or maybe, that they don’t want to have sex with this hypothetical man who has multiple partners? (That, of course, would be rape.) Now, if Wiley meant, “It’s not okay to be in a supposedly monogamous relationship and run around on your partner behind her back,” then I can get behind that. But the issue there is dishonesty, not sex.

Well, now I’ve expended a bunch of energy writing about all that, and I don’t feel like writing about the last sentence, about hiring a dancer. The multiple sex partners statement was the main issue that was a red flag for me, anyway.

Maybe Wiley hasn’t given a lot of thought to why s/he holds those views about sex; maybe it was a knee-jerk reaction. Or, maybe she honestly believes that having multiple sex partners is wrong. Whatever the case, let me also point out that a disagreement such as this one isn’t something that would prevent me from standing in solidarity with such a person to oppose violence against women, restriction of rights, objectification, and so on. But it’s something that bugs me because I don’t think enough people question these commonly accepted assumptions or acknowledge the potential they have to do harm (see Bitch | Lab for more).

* Ed. note: If this is 10th grade debate class, Diane and Shaunti get a B- and a C-, respectively

Yesterday Rusty and I were hanging out with some friends and the topic of health insurance came up. One of our friends mentioned the exorbitant amount he and his wife pay every month for coverage (they’re self-employed). In response to the mouth-agape, “holy shit that’s more than some people’s yearly salaries” look on my face, he said, “Well, it’s expensive, but all it takes is one major health crisis for it to pay for itself.” But, nobody should have to take that kind of gamble!! Another friend mentioned not being able to have her baby at the hospital really close to their house because it didn’t accept their insurance. And Monday morning I am going to have to resume jumping through hoops to try to talk to an actual person at my insurance company, to try to find out whether the therapist I have an appointment with Thursday (you know, so I can do something to help myself) is covered.

And what about my dad? He and my mom have been self-employed for almost 20 years. From the time I was about 7 years old onward, we didn’t have health insurance. My mom finally was able to buy it for herself about 5-6 years ago (after having to pay out of pocket for a critical GI surgery in 1997, until the hospital finally just stopped sending a bill). A year or so ago my parets finally got financially stable enough so that my dad could try to buy insurance too. Oh, except when he tried, he got turned down left and right because of pre-existing conditions. So, the health insurance companies basically said, “You’re not in perfect health and therefore you’re too much of a ‘risk,’ so fuck you, even though we are purportedly in the health business and are supposed to be here to help you.” (Which we all know is patently false, of course.) “P.S. Hope you don’t have a stroke!” And then, of course, he did, and from there you know the rest of the story.

As I said yesterday… this is one hell of a country.

And save your bullshit comments about supporting a “free market.” I am so sick of reading that same tripe over and over.