Minor FYIs...

[liz_marcs]

Heh. Sorry about the silence all. I'm trying to line up my ducks in Water Hold Me Down (Part 11 is here) and I'm not happy with the way they keep quacking at me. And flapping. And pointing out that I'm missing a duck. Then when I find the missing duck, another duck has gone running off.

Mysteries. Why can't they be easy to write?

Bah. I'm hoping to get a new chapter up by Friday (so much for daily updates). Sorry nwhepcat. My simple idea got pretty complicated on me pretty fast. I should've never let alterna-Willow stay alive. That's the culprit right there. Plus, I suspect that Xander's been organizing a union among my fanfic characters, both media-based and original, while I wasn't looking. I think this might account for the work slow-down.

On, the name of the union? CALEB--Characters Against Lizbeth's Emotional Beatings.

I've been served with notice that they're holding a vote to organize.

I could deal with unionization, really, I could. Except he's got Faith heading up the enforcers, all of whom are Slayers.

And they say Hoffa was trouble.

Ahem. Sorry. I'm working on gynecology today. I'm giddy with amusement.

One sentence I had to correct: A male condom is a nonporous, elastic covering placed over penis during intercourse.

Gold star to the person who sees what's wrong with the above statement.

Anyway, some things that made me laugh:

Hamlet. In PowerPOINT. Heh.

Dubya the Movie, with Don Knotts playing Gee Dubbya. The whole sneak preview real is done using Knotts' own movies. Bwah! Too fucking funny.

Some things that made me pissed:

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a report on On how absinance-only education is a joke. Well, duh! Keep kids ignorant and tell them "Don't do that!" is like lighting up a big-ass neon sign begging kids to do it! Jesus. I went to a fucking Catholic School and they at least talked about condoms and the rhythm method! Don't do it? Is that like "Just say no!" which works about as well?

Read the report and you'll be asking: "We're fucking paying for this shit? With federal tax dollars?" *headdesk*

The highlights:

The report finds that over 80% of the abstinence-only curricula, used by over two-thirds of SPRANS grantees in 2003, contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. Specifically, the report finds:

• Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Effectiveness of Contraceptives. Many of the curricula misrepresent the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. One curriculum says that "the popular claim that 'condoms help prevent the spread of STDs,' is not supported by the data"; another states that "[i]n heterosexual sex, condoms fail to prevent HIV approximately 31% of the time"; and another teaches that a pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times that couples use condoms. These erroneous statements are presented as proven scientific facts.
  
  
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain False Information about the Risks of Abortion. One curriculum states that 5% to 10% of women who have legal abortions will become sterile; that "[p]remature birth, a major cause of mental retardation, is increased following the abortion of a first pregnancy"; and that "[t]ubal and cervical pregnancies are increased following abortions." In fact, these risks do not rise after the procedure used in most abortions in the United States.
  
  
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Blur Religion and Science. Many of the curricula present as scientific fact the religious view that life begins at conception. For example, one lesson states: "Conception, also known as fertilization, occurs when one sperm unites with one egg in the upper third of the fallopian tube. This is when life begins." Another curriculum calls a 43-day-old fetus a "thinking person."
  
  
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact. One curriculum teaches that women need "financial support," while men need "admiration." Another instructs: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success on their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments."
  
  
• Abstinence-Only Curricula Contain Scientific Errors. In numerous instances, the abstinence-only curricula teach erroneous scientific
  information. One curriculum incorrectly lists exposure to sweat and tears as risk factors for HIV transmission. Another curriculum states that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual"; the correct number is 23.
  

The report finds numerous examples of these errors. Serious and pervasive problems with the accuracy of abstine nce-only curricula may help explain why these programs have not been shown to protect adolescents from sexually transmitted diseases and why youth who pledge abstinence are significantly less likely to make informed choices about precautions when they do have sex.

Personally, I'm most amused (for amused, read fucking furious) about gender roles:

E. Abstinence-Only Curricula Treat Stereotypes about Girls and Boys as Scientific Fact

Many abstinence-only curricula begin with a detailed discussion of differences between boys and girls. Some of the differences presented are simply biological. Several of the curricula, however, present stereotypes as scientific fact.

• Stereotypes that Undermine Girls’ Achievement
  Several curricula teach that girls care less about achievement and their futures than do boys. One curriculum instructs: "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men’s happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments." This curriculum also teaches:
  
  "Men tend to be more tuned in to what is happening today and what needs to be done for a secure future. When women began to enter the work force at an equal pace with men, companies noticed that women were not as concerned about preparing for retirement. This stems from the priority men and women place on the past, present, and future."
  
  Another curriculum lists "Financial Support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Women," and "Domestic Support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Men." The curriculum states:
  
  "Just as a woman needs to feel a man’s devotion to her, a man has a primary need to feel a woman’s admiration. To admire a man is to regard him with wonder, delight, and approval. A man feels admired when his unique characteristics and talents happily amaze her."
  
  A third curriculum depicts emotions as limiting girls’ ability to focus. It states:
  
  "Generally, guys are able to focus better on one activity at a time and may not connect feelings with actions. Girls access both sides of the brain at once, so they often experience feelings and emotions as part of every situation."
  
  
• Stereotypes that Girls Are Weak and Need Protection
  Some of the curricula describe girls as helpless or dependent upon men. In a discussion of wedding traditions, one curriculum writes: "Tell the class that the Bride price is actually an honor to the bride. It says she is valuable to the groom and he is willing to give something valuable for her."
  
  The curriculum also teaches: "The father gives the bride to the groom because he is the one man who has had the responsibility of protecting her throughout her life. He is now giving his daughter to the only other man who will take over this protective role."
  
  One book in the "Choosing the Best" series presents a story about a knight who saves a princess from a dragon. The next time the dragon arrives, the princess advises the knight to kill the dragon with a noose, and the following time with poison, both of which work but leave the knight feeling "ashamed." The knight eventually decides to marry a village maiden, but did so "only after making sure she knew nothing about nooses or poison." The curriculum concludes:
  
  "Moral of the story: Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man’s confidence or even turn him away from his princess."
  
  
• Stereotypes that Reinforce Male Sexual Aggressiveness
  One curriculum teaches that men are sexually aggressive and lack deep emotions. In a chart of the top five women’s and men’s basic needs, the curriculum lists "sexual fulfillment" and "physical attractiveness" as two of the top five "needs" in the men’s section. "Affection," "Conversation," "Honesty and Openness," and "Family Commitment" are listed only as women’s needs. The curriculum teaches: "A male is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is sexually attracted. . . . Women usually have greater intuitive awareness of how to develop a loving relationship."
  
  The same curriculum tells participants: "While a man needs little or no preparation for sex, a woman often needs hours of emotional and mental preparation."
  

Well, that tells us all we really need to know about this bullshit right here. It basically tells us:

1) Women aren't as great as men, so suck it up honey and stop bitching when you think you've been treated unfairly in the workplace.

2) Women who are smart and opinionated should shut the fuck up otherwise they'll die spinsters, and we all know that all a woman wants out of life is a man and to breed.

3) Women really are property, first of daddy and then of hubby, so do what you're told by the men in your life because really, see points one and two above.

4) You got raped? Sorry honey, it's your fault. Men can't help themselves because they're sexually aggressive and lack deep emotions, so what did you do to lead him to believe he could jump on you?

Unh, wait a seond, but is it me? Or is this pretty fucking insulting to men, too? I mean, a knight that doesn't want a clever princess who'll help him defeat his foes and move ahead in the world? Men being fucking emotionally shallow and incapable of deep feeling?

Really, guys, maybe you should join in the outrage on this one.

One more thing:

U.S. Generals Were Told of Abuse Early Inquiry Finds. (The article is from The Washington Post, so free registration may be required.) The article is about a December 2003 report lead by retired Col. Stuart A. Herrington (a veteran of "human intelligence operations" in Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, and Panama) that warned of abuses at Abu Ghraib looooong before it went public. He pointed out in his report that the torture at Abu Ghraib was not only creating more enemies than the U.S. needed, but failed to get the information U.S. forces desperately wanted. Some snippets from the article:

The report also provided an early account of the practice of holding some detainees -- sometimes called "ghost detainees" -- in secret and keeping them from international humanitarian organizations. Herrington also wrote that agents from other government agencies, which commonly refers to the CIA, regularly kept ghost detainees by not logging their arrests.

***[snip]***

Herrington's report also noted that sweeps pulled in hundreds and even thousands of detainees who had no connection to the war. Abu Ghraib, for example, swelled to several thousand more detainees than it could handle. Herrington wrote that aggressive and indiscriminate tactics by the 4th Infantry Division, rounding up random scores of detainees and "dumping them at the door," was a glaring example.

As the United States recently has picked up its counterinsurgency efforts, the number of new detainees has again surged.

"Between the losers and dead end elements from the former regime and foreign fighters, there are enough people in Iraq who already don't like us," Herrington wrote. "Adding to these numbers by conducting sweep operations . . . is counterproductive to the Coalition's efforts to win the cooperation of the Iraqi citizenry. Similarly, mistreatment of captives as has been reported to me and our team is unacceptable, and bound to be known by the population."

One thing the report makes clear (as if the Red Cross Gitmo report yesterday didn't underline it for you): the use of torture (let's call it what it is) is systematic and not limited to a "few bad apples" like Faux would like you to believe. Remember how our own State Department issues "Human Rights Report Cards" on other countries every year? I'm thinking between Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, we probably should clean our own goddamn house before pointing fingers at other people.

As Molly Ivins said in her latest column:

It is both peculiar and chilling to find oneself discussing the problem of American torture. I have considered support of basic human rights and dignity so much a part of our national identity that this feels as strange as though I'd suddenly become Chinese or found Fidel Castro in the refrigerator.

One's first response to the report by the International Red Cross about torture at our prison at Guantanamo is denial. "I don't want to think about it; I don't want to hear about it; we're the good guys, they're the bad guys; shut up. And besides, they attacked us first."

But our country has opposed torture since its founding. One of our founding principles is that cruel and unusual punishment is both illegal and wrong. Every year, our State Department issues a report grading other countries on their support for or violations of human rights.

I know some people might find it strange that I'm nailed by these accounts of abuse at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, but I can't help but see them as symptoms of a larger issue. Nobody is even fucking blinking about the non-stop revelations of torture, the fact that Dubbya's Administration has basically ripped up the Geneva Convention and said it didn't apply to us (read: Gitmo and Abu Ghraib), yet we expect enemy combatants to comply with the Convention when they've got our soldiers in their hot little hands. Unh, yeah. Not going to happen. It reveals a bullying meanness in this administration. It reveals a coarsening of American culture and the beginning of the loss of our soul. The "We are Right" Administration, even though there's evidence piling up that we're going to be paying through the nose for Dubbya and his cronies for a long time to come.

Gitmo and Abu Gharib is the canary in the coal mine.

When no one even blinked at the pictures from Abu Ghraib; when no one in the administration demanded Rumsfeld's head on a platter; when Dubbya didn't woefully announce a list of resignations among high government officials when Abu Ghraib came to light, it was a sign that the bullying was going to come home. No one was made to take responsibility and now we've got the "I didn't do it" Administration marching forward as if 48% of the country doesn't vehemently disagree with Dubbya. It's going to start here. It is starting here (the reports of TSA bullying at the airports is big news here in Boston; Logan International is one of the big spots where it's happening).

And it's only going to get worse. I know I'm being cynical here, but then, if you told me four years ago that we'd be here today, I would've never believed it.

Wonder how many people 20 years from now are going to claim that they didn't know (when really, they knew but they didn't want to see)? How many people who voted for Bush are going to claim they voted for Kerry 20 years from now (a prediction: people are going to wonder how Bush got elected with zero votes)?

I'm telling you: It's going to happen. History has a habit of repeating itself and it's repeating in a bad way right now.

Comments

[singer-d.livejournal.com]

One sentence I had to correct: A male condom is a nonporous, elastic covering placed over penis during intercourse.
Gold star to the person who sees what's wrong with the above statement.

Aside from the fact that a condom is is gender-neutral, and that "intercourse" can mean "talking," there's a missing article in that sentence.
::is a grammar geek::

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Actually, "a male condom" is to distinguish it from the female condom, so a half a gold star. There's context you weren't aware of, although it does read weird when out of context.

The missing article is another half a gold star, again because we're talking medi-speak, but you'd be right in plain English.

However, it's not the really BIG, GLARING PROBLEM in the sentence.

So, one gold star, anyway.

*grins*

[lakrids404.livejournal.com]

I would guess, that I would be more practical to put the condom on before intercourse than under, but what do I know.

I don’t understand why people don’t understand that one needs to be critical over for one self, over what is ones beliefs and what one have statically data over for. I don’t see how you can make a better society without building over bedrock of truth, and not that is common knowledge or that how always been done.
Especially over such liquid subject as human behaviour, where the unanswerable question is, how much of is nature and how much is culture.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

WHEEEE!

DING DING DING DING!

"Before" is the correct answer!

[huzzlewhat.livejournal.com]

Gitmo and Abu Gharib is the canary in the coal mine.

Honey, there are so many canaries in this coal mine that you can't move for stepping on a little birdie-corpse.

I'm floored by Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. What's going to come out of Gitmo, when it eventually comes out -- which it will, unless the government just nukes the place flat -- is nauseating to think about.

I'm trying so hard to steer away from the "fascism" language when I talk politics with people, because I know it makes me sound irrational and alarmist and makes people take me less seriously... but it's hard. People think it can't happen here? Why? Because we're just such fundamentally better people than the Germans and the Italians and the Spanish and the... Yeah. Of course we are.

[ludditerobot.livejournal.com]

The problem would be before intercourse, because putting one during would be problematic.

[bastardsnow.livejournal.com]

would that BIG, GLARING PROBLEM be that if you put it on *during* sex... it's probably a little too late?

[bigsciencybrain.livejournal.com]

*takes deep breath* Was livid about halfway through the abstinence only part. And you're absolutely right, men should be insulted and outraged. It's only when they finally begin to stand up for themselves as human beings that there's any hope they'll cease to be monsters. Not that I actually have any hope of that ever happening.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

The sad thing is, some canaries are still chirping and some people in this country are stomping on them to shut them the hell up. It's disconcerting to watch.

I know. Fascism has been so overused to the point where it's meaningless. Sadly, my only hope is that the Reform Democrats gain control of the party (and it looks like it might happen) so you'd actually have an active opposition instead of the same-old, same-old.

The other hope is that the conservative wing of the Republicans break away from the religious wing and form either a third party, join forces with Reform Democrats, or start an intercine Republican Party war. Certainly the so-called Rockerfeller Republicans (aka the Blue State Republicans) are getting pretty verbally antsy about the situation.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

*bing* GOLD STAR!

I have to admit that it cracked me up when I saw it. Much hilarity ensued with the client to boot.

Is there anyway to discuss contraceptives without sounding vaguely off-color?

After attending a business meeting yesterday where this was discussed, let's just say, "No."

[ludditerobot.livejournal.com]

The best bet would be to keep it as clinical as possible.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

I was livid about the "princess story," partly because stories are so freakin' important, especially when you're using fairy tale imagery like you see here. A lot of people don't realize that when you read some of the fairytales in their original form, the "princesses" or "damsels" are not uniformly waiting for their prince to come. A lot of them show grit and cleverness to get what they want. A lot of versions of Cinderella have the "princess" or "damsel" outwitting the prince on no less than three nights and refusing to fall under the spell of his "obvious" charms and that's what intrigues him, for example.

What I find especially infuriating is the twistng of science. It just so happened that I'm right now working on contraception in my RL job and I know the statistics cited in these programs are hysterical and flat out wrong.

I swear to go, it's like those "Just say no!" DARE programs. Marijuanna is the gateway drug? No. It's not. Cigarettes is actually the gateway drug. One puff of marijuanna and you'll be eating Doritos for the rest of your life? I don't think so.

The thing is, once you lie about one thing (marijuanna turns you into a criminal!), kids are less likely to believe things that are true about the more hardcore drugs (heroin really does fuck your shit up).

But this is far more dangerous because it combines deliberately instituting ignorance and combines it with a certain religious viewpoint that would have me livid if I was a parent. Granted, I'm in the camp that things parents need to be more upfront about sex with their kids, but parents shouldn't be put in the position of telling their kids that the schools and teachers are lying to them, either. Certainly not when the focus should be on science. I think I've always considered sex ed as grounded in science and the morality should be left up to the freakin' parents.

ARRGHHHHHHH!

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

Gold star for you!

[bigsciencybrain.livejournal.com]

Yeah. What she said. *points to Liz* LOL

More fun with the Waxman report

[(Anonymous)]

Saw the abstinence report this morning in the Washington Post and was livid about it all day, especially when I read the part about the creator of some of the "educational" materials saying that the Waxman report is an attack upon the teaching of abstinence. Uh, no. Teaching abstinence is fine. Ideally, it would be presented as an option within a broader sex education program aimed at preventng teenage pregnancy and STDs, but that's a different argument. But if you're going to teach abstinence, get the freakin' facts right. Is that so much to ask?

Maybe the creator of the "curriculum" thinks that abstinence is such an unattractive option that he's got to scare kids into it by making up ridiculous statistics about pregnancy, AIDS, suicide, sterility, etc. One of the most egregious errors that I didn't see mentioned in your write-up, Liz, was the allegation that half of U.S. gay male teenagers have tested positive for HIV.

Now, the stuff about the male/female stereotypes is just...mind-boggling. It's like the people who write this material want to turn the clock back to, ideally, the Middle Ages, or at least the 1950s.

The cultural-conservative organizations--Focus on the Family, the Heritage Foundation--are blasting the media with press releases claiming that not only is Waxman attacking abstinence education, the information in his report is suspect simply because he supports sex-education programs. OK, so those federal researchers, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, and so on--they're all secretly in league with Waxman and are using their research grants to cook up bogus studies about HIV transmission and teen-pregnancy rates. Because those are the sources the Waxman report cites for the stats it uses to show how off the mark much of the abstinence material is. By their nature, those stats and studies have been documented, peer-reviewed, and reproduced out the wazoo.

Perhaps the most entertaining part of the abstinence curriculum cited by the Waxman report is that touching your partner's genitals can result in pregnancy. Joe S. McIlhaney Jr., the aforementioned curriculum creator who runs an organization called the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, insists that "mutual masturbation" represents "a real, though small, risk of pregnancy."

Small. You think? Like maybe 0.000001% of all pregnancies?

::shakes head in disbelief::

Waxman sums up the issue better than I can:
"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

--BaileyTC

[damocleaze.livejournal.com]

Fighting urge...must ...contain...Republican rage.....

okay...much better.

Sorry...I am seeing therepy for this. so bear with me.

[(Anonymous)]

Above you wrote:
>> What I find especially infuriating is the twistng of science. It just so happened that I'm right now working on contraception in my RL job and I know the statistics cited in these programs are hysterical and flat out wrong.


I don't know... I think you might be basing your stats on people who can use contraceptives *correctly*.

31% of STDs transmitted between sexual partners; and pregnancy occuring one out of every seven times that couples use condoms might very well be true if you put the condom on a couple of minutes *after* you've started having sexual intercourse.

Cos obviously the first couple of thrusts don't count... they're the sexual equivalent of practice swings in golf!!! Why not go the whole hog and just use the 'pulling out before ejaculation' method.... argh!!!! What is wrong with these people...???? What makes them decide that in order to prove that something they don't approve of doesn't work, that they should misinterpret what was being said.

And please let everyone know that the above is sarcasm... do NOT use the pulling out method. (I was going to assume everyone *would* realise that, but after reading what started off my mini-rant in the first place I decided I couldn't risk it.)

Mike

PS - Also had to resist shouting in disbelief when he read the 'male condom' sentence at first - though maybe *that* should be the test; if a person does not understand the instructions on the contraceptive they are planning to use then that person is *not* mature/careful enough to be engaging in sexual activity of any nature... and what's the solution to that..? Come on everybody... join in... you know you want to... that's right - EDUCATION!!!

[(Anonymous)]

[quote] Unh, wait a second, but is it me? Or is this pretty fucking insulting to men, too? I mean, a knight that doesn't want a clever princess who'll help him defeat his foes and move ahead in the world? Men being fucking emotionally shallow and incapable of deep feeling? [/quote]

Part of the macho stereotype that men aren't supposed to be bothered by anything, that they're sissies or girlymen if they ever admit they're wrong or have doubts or can't find their way to the airport...

Agreed, sexist gender-role bullshit like this is as insulting to men as it is to women.

I dislike how it attempts to disconnect men *and* women from their actions. Men aren't emotionally connected and are sexually aggressive with a need to prove themselves, and women are all touchy-feely and relationship-obsessed, seems to be a built-in justification for women being 'hysterical' or 'too emotional' for some jobs, and a built-in defense for crap like rape or spousal abuse. Dude, male or female, an ADULT can think past their dick (or womb) and be whomever the fuck they want to be, accomplish just about anything, equally as well. (Obviously men can't give birth, but really, there isn't anything that a man can do that a woman can't do just as well, if not better.)

The princess story is just ridiculous. Who the hell would want a wife that wasn't helpful, wasn't willing to offer practical suggestions, wasn't able to say, 'hey dumbass, pull over and ask for directions' or 'I won't think less of you if you want to cry' or 'shut up and smile Bill, and I'll make you President.' That princess needs to hold out for a smarter prince!

The story makes it sound like a woman isn't supposed to be a contributing part of a marriage, isn't supposed to be an equal partner in the success of the family, but is supposed to shut up and know her place, as a stay at home brood mare.

To me that's the point of marriage, to find someone able to carry you at the rough parts and willing to work with you to build a future together, not someone to sit down, shut up and let me do all the work alone... When I want mindless adoration, and a clingy co-dependent relationship, I can get that from my dog. :)

Set

Remember the Promise Keepers?

[(Anonymous)]

"The story makes it sound like a woman isn't supposed to be a contributing part of a marriage, isn't supposed to be an equal partner in the success of the family, but is supposed to shut up and know her place, as a stay at home brood mare."

It's been several years since they came upon the scene -- hell, are they even still around? Do they *do* anything? -- but I dimly remember reading in newspapers or magazines, when the Promise Keepers first arrived on the scene, some excerpts of their statement of purpose. I'm poorly paraphrasing from memory, but essentially, they declared that the "proper" model of marriage had very definite roles and responsibilities for husbands and wives alike, and that in recent times, husbands had failed in their duties by allowing (or forcing by default) wives to assume some of the husbands' duties in either marriage or the family, blah blah blah. And thus the "promise" that they were now going to "keep" was that they would reassume their duties, number one of which was that the husband was supposed to assume the chief role of leading and decision-making for the family, and the wives could go back to their proscribed role of submitting to their husbands and following his lead, yada yada yada.

In other words, when the PK showed up, they were more or less declaring that no, wives were *NOT* supposed to be on an equal basis in a marriage with their husbands. In a warped, MAD magazine cartoon world, one could imagine the PK longing to dress up in sheets and ride through the countryside harassing and worse those husbands and wives who won't fall in line with their vision of "proper" marriages. Then again, I'm cynical and in a bad mood after work today, so I might be overdoing it.

--skippcomet