Women Need Men

     I've talked so much about abortion laws, touched on how those laws potentially impact other laws and rights, birth control access, safety from rape or other physical violence, autonomy and agency, self determination, and more. I've talked about how overturning Roe left women vulnerable to future denial of basic personhood. Some state and federal legislators have mentioned a desire to reinstiutue Comstock laws (https://www.britannica.com/event/Comstock-Act), others have discussed making contraceptives more difficult to obtain, one state representative even voted "no" on closing a marital rape loophole (https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/local-rep-only-no-vote-on-eliminating-spousal-exception-for-rape/JOWQJBAXFFGDJJB5B57CF5M3GY/). 

We were told upholding Dobbs and overturning Roe was to protect babies. Tell that to Katie Cox and her husband. They wanted a baby. They discovered the 20 week old fetus was non-viable due to a severe genetic disorder. Carrying the fetus to term could potentially result in Mrs. Cox's death, at the very least to a hysterectomy that would render her unable to have more children. Katie Cox is a mother and wanted her children to have another sibling. Texas courts granted her leave to have an abortion to save her life and future fertility. The Texas Supreme Court overturned that ruling. She had the financial ability to leave Texas and get a medically necessary abortion. The Texas Supreme Court did not care about the Cox family. They did not care about Mr. Cox or the Cox children. They did especially did not care about Mrs. Cox. They cared about a fetus that was destined to die either in utero or soon after delivery.

Women need men. We have spent so long working towards independence and equality. We fought so hard for so long to achieve independence and equality under the law. We've fought for equal treatment in public life, at work, in school, at home. Men have helped on that journey. Every step, every advancement, every achievement, men and women worked together to achieve. How could we shut them out of our current fight for maintaining that level self-determination? Why would we shut them out of the fight that so intimately affects them? Women literally bear the brunt of pregnancy, childbirth, often of child-rearing, but we do not become pregnant alone. We ususally don't carry a pregnancy without some kind of support. We don't raise children in isolation. 

Men, we want partners in our lives. We want helpmates. We want support and to give support. We want providers and protectors, even as we provide and protect ourselves, our families, and you. These anti-choice laws affect men.  They affect a man's ability to control his reproductive plans. They affect a husband or partner's life. 

Women need men to have conversations about these laws with each other. Women need men to talk to other men about "women's issues" because they are not just women's issues, they are human issues. We need men to talk about how many children they want, how to prevent unwanted pregancies, how to prevent tragic outcomes if the pregnancies don't go well. We need men to have honest converations about birth control access and how implementing the Comstock Laws from 1873 could prevent even the use of condoms. We need men to start calling each other out if they believe women should be treated as humans or as chattle. We need men to talk about marital rape and how one known elected state representative beleives a marriage license is explicit consent to sex whenever he wishes, whether his wife wants sex or not. We need men to talk with each other about what happened to Katie Cox and if they could afford to send his wife 500+ miles away to get life saving care in that same circumstance. Maternal mortality rates are rising. In 2021, before abortion bans went into affect, the mortality rate was 32.9/100000. In 2019 it was 20.1. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm#:~:text=The%20maternal%20mortality%20rate%20for,20.1%20in%202019%20(Table).) What will it be in another few years? Some of those deaths are homicides, either during pregnancy or post-partum. Men, these are your spouses, partners, sisters, and daughters. Should you wife be required to carry a pregnancy as a result of being raped on her way home from work? Should your daughter? 

 What happened to nuance? The last few years everyone has fallen into such a binary thought process. yes/no; black/white; on/off; good/evil. Binary thoughts are immature, juvenile, and bluntly, childish. No one is all good or all evil. None of us should be judged by the worst thing we ever did and no one should be judged by the best thing we ever did. 

When did we change? Have we changed? Our pre-historic ancestors lived in small tribes where survival meant consensus and teamwork. Encountering another tribe could mean death, or friendship and better chance at survival due to different ideas, new knowledge, new techniques and technology. Over time our tribes have grown into cities-states and nations. But here we are, with nations as tribes and tribes within nations, always wondering if that tribe over there means death or friendship. We in the US focus on our internal tribes while the nation's leaders theoretically focus on external tribes, other nations. 

I think US leaders focus on retaining any power we gave them to the point they've lost sight of other nations as potential friends or enemies. These leaders are fostering a tribal mindset within and amongst us to retain power and the illusion of control. We are the Untied States but we act like a multitude of tribes fighting for dominance within our own borders. I think world leaders with power derived from and with consensus of a nation's people seek to divide that people to keep power. 

We have not changed from those pre-historic humans struggling to eat and not be eaten. As a species, humans are still and probably always will be barbarians in our souls and our DNA. The difference now is global communication and a steady diet of social media, which is anything but social. The almighty algorithm keeps most of us safely in our bubbles and echo chambers. Anyone with a different viewpoint is suspect, from a different tribe, and could mean death. But it could mean friendship. 

Those algorithms divide us more than our actual opinions. Most of us want what is best for ourselves, our family and friends, and humanity as a whole. We don't really want to see anyone eaten. Our pre-historic ancestors seem to have had it right, use caution with a new tribe but exchange ideas, knowledge, techniques, and technology. If every tribe thought they had the corner on survival and destroyed on sight humanity would have never survived and given us modern humans cell phones and space travel.

Politicians, all politicians, social media that lacks socializing, and blind algorithms that feed us only what we already (think) we know will be our downfall, globally. I'm not immune, no one is. I try to watch news and read news from different angles. I try to see through the BS given on both sides. I try to look for third or even fourth points of view (good luck!).

Discussions of right and wrong should look at the situation. Our more successful pre-historic ancestors got it right, be cautious, be ready to fight, be willing to parlay. Exchange the ideas, the knowledge, the technique, and the technology. Make room for circumstance or mercy or grace. Humans make mistakes and humans become unlikely heroes in someone's story. 

Do I have ADHD?

 I'm neurodivergent. I've known this on some level my whole life. Right now I'm going through some things. I'm trying to understand what neurodivergent means for me. I'm trying to decide my best course of action. For me, the key to moving forward is understanding the issue as thoroughly as I can. my coping mechanism has always been to fall back on my intelligence. The problem now is that I have no idea how to get the information I need to use my intelligence to decide on my best course of action.

Let me back up. In the last year i have seen a significant shift in my ability to organize, complete tasks, stay focused and engaged on .... pretty much anything. Couple that with tactile sensitivity, getting overwhelmed in crowds easily, tendency to self-isolate, difficulty in social situations, and, well, you get the idea, I have circled back around to neurodivergent.

Let's back up a little further. I started first grade at age 4. I was in that in-between birthday where it was parents' choice whether to delay a year or start school. I skipped kindergarten completely. My teacher decided I couldn't read because I never had my place when out-loud reading was the lesson. She also only saw the coloring and doodling I did in my books. She didn't look deeper. During a parent teacher conference she told my parents I may be developmentally delayed and referred for an IQ test. I was reading and doodling from boredom. The IQ test showed an IQ well above average. My parents would never tell me results, only that I qualified for MENSA. In second and third grade my academics were lackluster at best. My third grade teacher finally dove a little deeper. I can't remember much of that except that the following year I was put in a learning disabilities program for about an hour a day. In fifth grade I was placed in a similar program for gifted learners. Again, my parents never would tell me what learning disability was identified beyond I "had a problem with linear thinking" and "math exercises helped". It's too late to ask my parents. Dad died a few years ago and Mom has dementia now.

It may sound like I'm blaming my parents for not informing me, at least in adulthood. I don't blame them but I admit my feelings on this are complex. I partially understand why. They didn't want me "labeled" by the schools or by my self. Dad had deep-seated mistrust of psychology (with good reason). On the other hand, looking back, they made accommodations for how my brain works. They were always supportive, provided structure and freedom for exploration. When I hyper-focused on some random topic they rolled with it. When I didn't complete school work they helped me break it up and get it done in chunks. They encouraged me to make and have friends but allowed me a tremendous amount of alone time. I was allowed to drink nothing but Mountain Dew by the case as a kid. I think Dad let me start drinking coffee at 14 because stimulants help people with ADHD. It may have been instinct, it may have been with awareness, I'll never know. All that caffeine may have helped me be successful in high school and at least on an even keel in elementary. I lived on caffeine in college and still do 20 years later. 

For a while I thought I was on the autistic spectrum. Not much you can do about that at 50 and I've managed well enough for most of my life. I did some research and made a joke of it. Now I think I have ADHD. Why do I think this? well, I have plenty of symptoms. I do not have an official diagnosis. I called my school district but as I suspected, all my records have been destroyed for at least 30 years. Perfectly reasonable but difficult for me to gain whatever knowledge I can.

Over the years I found that highly structured environments and routines help keep me on track. Deviation led to anxiety, depressed feelings, and chaotic environments and emotions. Control became a refuge. It has also become a barrier to growth and a hesitancy to let go and have fun. The unknown scares me because I don't know how I will react and when I'm "full" I'm full and will want to leave no matter what is happening. When I let go I start talking to much and too fast about subjects most find weird, uninteresting, inappropriate, or just totally off-topic.

Now, finally, I am seriously considering seeking a diagnosis. Whatever is the deal with me, I need answers to cope effectively with it.

https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-symptoms-in-women/

https://www.additudemag.com/women-hormones-and-adhd/?src=test

https://adhdonline.com/is-it-adhd-or-your-thyroid-or-is-it-both/

 It's been a while. Some things have changed since my last post. Rocky crossed the Rainbow bridge peacefully with my husband and I at his side. Some laws have changed. Trump has been indicted on misdemeanor changes on NY. I have a new job. The kitchen and bath renovations are well underway.

Oh, I have a new job! So far I love it. It's a rapidly changing environment but one where everyone seems genuinely interested in doing the right thing. Everyone seems genuinely kind and helpful.

I'm still in healthcare, adjacently, which is what I wanted. I am working with talented people in a collaborative environment, which is what I wanted. I have the type of job I wanted. I wake up happy to go to work. Even driving to Tampa isn't a downer for me.

That's all for this post. Look out for more!

Birth Rates, Abortion, and Immigration: What Is happening?

 US projected population decline and anti-abortion push/rhetoric. Is it really related to religiosity or is it related to desire to maintain birth rates and US global power while being able to continue to demonize immigration, especially by POC, and anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments.

Is the anti-abortion/anti-choice narrative a global power-play with strong racist overtones?

Where are the studies on the anti-abortion faction, the alarmists concerned about declining US birth rates, and the anti-immigration factions? It seems to me the root cause of all three concerns boil down to the same concern, US geopolitical supremacy.

Birth rates are falling world-wide in industrialized nations. WHO names abortion access a human right but how long will that last? Globally, right wing ideologies and nationalism are rising. State control is rising. The US seems to be in a shadow war of population management. Allow decreased birth rates and unchecked immigration in other countries but severely curtail abortion access and immigration here.

I’ve heard the argument that abortion access is inherently racist. I believe it is but not entirely the way we’ve been taught. Were POC supposed to have more abortions than whites? Were bans instituted through the 1900's intended to force white women to have children? 

Falling birth rates come with dire warnings of economic collapse, civilization-killing changes to society, and irreversible changes to the status quo. Governments have a strong incentive to ensure geopolitical strength. One of the easiest, maybe the only, way to do that is to ensure a larger population than their competitors. Limiting access to abortion is only the first step. Limiting or eliminating access to birth control is next. Limiting rights for openly LGTBQ+ people will follow. Same sex couples do not reproduce. What happens after that? Limiting employment opportunities for women? My statements and question may be hyperbole but it is the natural extension of the idea to increase birth rates.

The developed world’s emphasis on autonomy and equality, education and women in the workforce, these ideologies reinforce women choosing smaller families. Put simply, we have choices and many choose to limit the number of children or have none at all. The eventuality is to remove choices, AKA severely limiting access to abortion, birth control, and work outside the home. The limits on choices has already begun. How far will we allow those limits to go?

Let’s look at the other side of the equation. If you believe global population is too large and humans are having an outsized impact on weather, climate change, pollution, and destroying the Earth then falling birth rates are a boon. When people believe that human suffering, starvation, disease, poverty, are the result of overpopulation then declining birth rates are a move in the right direction. How do we encourage even more or faster depopulation? Open access to abortion, birth control, education, work, and choice is the answer. Increased freedoms, increased choices, increased regulations on how and where to build, types of industry, and food production and distribution would be in line with global depopulation goals. Did you read that? Increased freedoms and increased regulation in the same sentence. This side of the argument is largely pessimistic about humanity and sees us as a scourge upon the earth. Many are nihilistic about our place on the planet, full of dire warnings of ecologic and climate catastrophes resulting in war, starvation, and irreversible changes to the status quo.

In actuality, both sides of the argument promise improved outcomes for humanity. One side argues that maintaining or growing the population will do what it has always done, increase prosperity for most. The other side argues that decreasing the population will increase resources for the smaller population through a cleaner environment and more food and housing for everyone.  I don’t believe either side is wholly correct. Right now it’s a fight for supremacy. We are still cavemen fighting over limited resources and the best way to use them. We always will be; we are human.

My original question is where are the studies on the interconnectedness of abortion access policies, immigration policies, and falling birth rates. I haven’t seen anyone take these seemingly disparate issues and correlate them. We have so much data. I don’t even know where to begin to do the research myself.

I have provided a link to an article outlining some possibilities. Notably, it nearly ignores the US, getting a few sentences and not touching restrictive abortion policies taking hold.

Declining fertility rates and the threat to human rights

end of life, pet edition

 We have three dogs. All of them are elderly. We have a min-pin, a Jack Russel, and a mutt. The mutt is chronologically the youngest but he is also the largest so he's also the oldest physically. We love all three of them. Jack, the min-pin, is the oldest at 16, Roscoe, the JRT, is 15, and Rocky, our lovable mutt is 14. All of them are on some sort of medication.

Rocky has significant arthritis and kidney disease. He is on a plethora of pain medication for arthritis and a special diet and medication for kidney disease. He's become incontinent of stool at times. I found through research this is common with advanced arthritis. He falls and has trouble laying down and standing up. He drags one of his hind legs when he walks. He's restless and he whines more and more often. It's very close, if not overdue, to let him rest. 

I didn't share yet, we are a blended family, Jack and Rocky are my husband's from before he met me, Roscoe is mine from before we met. I can't make end of life decisions for Rocky or Jack. Well, technically I could but I won't. My husband has to make those decisions. I've told him how he is during the day. I've told him how much constant pain he is in. I've cried. I've watched my husband cry with Rocky. My heart breaks every day for Rocky. 

I've discussed Rocky's condition with our wonderful veterinarian, Dr. Daniels. Her philosophy is that dogs should be able to dog and when they can no longer act as a dog it is our responsibility to let them go.

I've shared this with my husband. He's working through the grief of knowing he has to make that choice sooner rather than later. Rocky has good days but he always drags his foot. He always struggles to lay down or get back up. He still wants to dog. Right now good days still outnumber bad days. When the balance shifts it will be time.

I'm sad for Rocky and our little pack of dogs, and us. I won't feel sad for Rocky when he is set free to cross the rainbow bridge where all good dogs go. I will be happy for him on that day.

Love your fur babies. They are given us to love for such a short time. We don't deserve them. Try and act like we do.

sex education

 Some time in the mid-80's, the high school lunch room. I'm with my small circle of friends. Us girls are talking about sex, because...high school girls. Someone said something about staying a virgin because she was afraid to get pregnant. Followed up by worrying about what to eat so she wouldn't hurt a baby. What happens if my cheeseburger bonks it on the head? she asks in all seriousness. Someone else mentioned that you can't get pregnant the first time.

I was appalled. Both statements were ludicrous. I proceeded to hold an impromptu sex education class during lunch. I explained anatomy using appropriate medical terminology for body parts for male and female. I think I might have drawn a picture of a uterus and fallopian tubes on a napkin. I explained how sex worked, how pregnancy worked, and that no Virginia, your cheeseburger will not "bonk" a baby on its head. I explained that you can get pregnant any time you have sex, including the first time. The girls at my table asked how I knew all of this.

Let me reiterate: this was high school. Not middle school, not grade school. High school. We were all at least 14 years old. All of us had started our periods. None of this should have been new information.

I was lucky. My parents decided when I was young that I would have honest, accurate information. Every question I asked was always answered as a very young child. The answers were honest and factual while being age-appropriate. As my mother said often, if you are old enough to ask you are old enough to to be given an answer. So I was prepared when I started my period at 11. I wasn't frightened. I knew what it probably was so instead of panicking, I talked to my mom. Her talks with me got much more frank and detailed at that point. We talked about birth control and sex and how she thought I was too young but if I ever felt like it was time to use protection and come to her to get birth control. At 11 my response was to remind her I still played with dolls, I'm definitely too young for sex. She was relieved but likely not surprised.

My school system gave the first sex ed talk in 5th grade, girls and boys were separated. You needed parental consent. My dad asked me to just sit quietly and not ask questions. Looking back I probably understood better than my teacher and/or anything I asked would result in a call from the school and yet another parent-teacher conference. I did as asked. we watched some after school special type movie about pads and body hair and that was that. I never found out what boys were taught. In high school health class we got a little more anatomy and briefly touched on reproduction and that was that. We may have been sex-segregated again, I'm not sure. It was the 80's, they touched on AIDS/ARC, remember ARC? ARC was HIV before it was called HIV. By then I'd learned to keep my mouth shut to get along. School sucks but that's a different blog post.

This year Moms for Liberty (hard eye roll on that name) is challenging the sex ed provided in local high schools because they should be teaching abstinence and not birth control or STI prevention. Um, remember HIV/AIDS? How about syphilis, chlamydia, herpes? Oh, abstinence, right, because that's always been effective (hard eye roll). I am appalled, just as I was in high school when I held an impromptu sex ed class over lunch. 

I thought we would move beyond puritanical hold-overs by now. I thought we would be more comfortable educating children and young adults on their bodies and the bodies of the opposite sex by now. I honestly thought that STIs and pregnancy would trump abstinence only education by now.  I hope the children of Moms for Liberty (hard eye roll on that name) meet someone whose parents chose factual, accurate information over storks and cabbages who will hold an impromptu sex ed class over lunch.