Have I mentioned that I really hate the term “intersectionality”? Because I do. And I try very hard to make sure that it doesn’t appear on this website, because it’s one of those things that strikes me as an obnoxious buzzword. However, this is a case in which the word is really appropriate, because it allows me to say what I want to say without having to go into a bunch of meandering circumlocutions.

Basically, intersectionality is the idea that social and cultural constructions act in multiple ways to contribute to inequality and oppression. Prejudice against people on the basis of gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, or what have you, in other words, does not occur in a vacuum. A black lesbian isn’t separately oppressed as a woman, a black person, and a lesbian, she has a unique experience which combines all of these factors. I think that the basic concept of intersectionality is familiar to most of us, although we might resist using the word because, well, because it sounds like a catchy woo-woo buzzword. And it kinda is, but it is appropriate here, so please forgive me for using it and bear with me.

In the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8 by a narrow margin in California, I have been reading a lot of commentary. And I mean a lot, coming from a wide variety of perspectives. And I’ve noticed some very interesting use of language going on, and I wanted to address that.

For example, I see people saying things like “fuck Californians,” and “people in California are bigots.” Well, as a Californian, let me tell you that is simply not true. And people who say those kinds of things really ought to know better. Obviously, not all of California is filled with bigoted hate mongers, because almost half of us voted against Proposition 8. Are there bigoted people in California? You betcha, and those people need to be addressed, but I’d rather not be tarred with the same brush simply because I live in the same state that they do. I am ashamed of being a Californian right now because of the example my state just set, but statements like “shame on California” really do not benefit this discussion at all.

I’ve also been hearing a lot of “Mormons are evil people,” and “we should tear down the Mormon church.” Now, the Mormon Church did sink a ton of money into Proposition 8, and I think that we can safely say that they definitely contributed to its passage, and that they may have even been the tipping point. And, yeah, I think that if a church gets involved in political activity, it should be losing its tax-exempt status, and I hope the IRS looks into that. But, you know what, that’s the Church, not individual Mormons. I happen to know many Mormons, all of whom support same sex marriage, and many of whom actively campaigned against Proposition 8 or asked people in their church to refrain from donating to 8 supporters. Please, people, let’s abstract the people and the church. Yes, there are bigoted, hateful Mormons who were indeed celebrating when 8 passed. But there were other Mormons who were not, and I would rather not be seeing blanket attacks on the basis of religion in this discussion. The Mormons have a rough enough time already from people who have a total lack of understanding for their faith. If anything, we should be reaching out to them and finding common ground, not denigrating them and their faith.

I’ve also seen a lot of attacks on the black community, and I don’t think that those attacks are productive. 70% of blacks in California voted for Proposition 8, in a mind-boggling move to take civil rights away from people. Coming from people who have fought long and hard for civil rights, that’s a bit dismaying. However, again it’s important to recognize that the black community is pretty big, and pretty diverse. One of the people I talked to on election night was a young black queer woman who has fought long and hard against 8, and was in fact working with the No on 8 campaign on election day. So don’t tell me that the black community is bigoted and full of hatred, because that’s not true.

There are obviously a lot of people in the black community who I think haven’t made the connection to gay marriage and civil rights. And that’s really sad, since a lot of gays and lesbians fought side by side with the black community for civil rights, and I think that many of us relied on them for support when we started our own civil rights battle. And yes, blacks do tend to attend church in higher numbers, and that did play a role in their vote. But for us to start calling out the black community as a whole for homophobia? That’s a bad move. We want the black community as our ally, not our enemy. To do that, we need to educate people, not scream at them. Yes, the black vote played a role in what happened with Proposition 8. Yes, that needs to be acknowledged. But, to use the word again, there is a lot of intersectionality in the black community, and our black LGBQT brothers and sisters fought against 8, voted against it, and continue to support us in this battle. Race baiting does not accomplish anything, people.

This is as much a generation gap as an age gap. You know who voted, across the board, for Prop 8? Old people. I don’t see any attacks on old people going on. I don’t see anyone mentioning the fact that young blacks voted consistently against Prop 8, as did young Californians in general. You want to blame anyone for what happened, why not blame old people with antiquated values?

The civil rights movement worked because people worked together. Because the black community mobilized and stood up for itself, and because people supported the black community. The LGBQT civil rights movement, although it has been going on just as long, is still in its infancy, and I’m not quite sure why that is. But we are definitely not going to be accomplishing anything if we bite the hands that feed us. We can’t go this alone. We need to make people understand why LGBQT civil rights are important, and how they can help us achieve them.

We’re already making progress. Proposition 22 passed by a much broader margin in 2000 than Prop 8. Same sex marriage is still legal in several states. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that blacks were treated like they weren’t people. 60 years ago, blacks couldn’t marry whites, and California was the first state to strike down anti-miscegenation laws as unconstitutional. In 2008, we made history again when we struck down gay marriage bans as unconstitutional, and unfortunately the result of that was an attempt to alter the Constitution to make it say what bigots wanted it to say.

In order to win a civil rights victory, we need help from people who have fought and won civil rights battles already. Women got the right to vote after decades of sustained hard work. Blacks made a number of gains in the 1960s and 1970s after the same amount of work. Neither of those groups would have achieved their goals if they had abused their supporters. If you care about civil rights, you don’t treat all members of a particular group the same way, because that’s the behaviour which leads to inequality in the first place. That’s what they do, my friends, and that is what we cannot do.

Go ahead, be angry at the Mormons, blacks, and Californians who voted for Proposition 8. But remember that lots of Mormons, blacks, and Californians also voted against Prop 8. Don’t cheapen what they did by trashing them, not matter how angry you are. And remember something else: some members of the LGBQT community voted for Prop 8, too. So why not just be angry at bigots instead?

We must fight for civil rights, not waste time in spurious attacks against people who could be helping us.

Proposition 4, for those of you who are not aware of it, is yet another parental notification proposition. These seem to come up on the ballot repeatedly, and they repeatedly get voted down. However, you should still go out and register a resounding “NO” on four, because it is a bad proposition, and because a lot of conservatives are going to be out and about in this election, which means that every vote counts.

Under the terms of Proposition 4, abortions for unemancipated minors are put on hold “until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.” There are a few key exceptions, and there’s a clause that the minor must consent to the abortion (the very thought of forced abortion is just repellent to me, so I guess it’s good to have that in there), and it includes mandatory reporting requirements. Big Brother wants to keep an eye on your uterus.

So, there are a couple of reasons why I think this is a bad proposition, and why I think that even people who are opposed to abortion should vote no on it. I think that both sides of this debate can agree that abortion really sucks, and it is something we would all like to see less of. However, if abortion is going to happen, I think (and I hope anti-abortion advocates agree) that it should take place in a clean, sterile, safe environment. Mandatory reporting requirements are going to drive minors in search of abortion underground (or across state lines) and into some potentially very dangerous situations. Including suicide. Teenage girls will die if Proposition 4 passes, and that’s a cold fact.

I would love it if all minors could discuss their abortions with their parents or guardians, and receive support from their families. But mandatory reporting is not the way to do it. What if the minor is trying to abort the result of incest or molestation? What if her family is extremely conservative, and they throw her out of her home?

I wish that we all lived in a world where teenage girls had open, safe relationships with their parents and guardians. A world where teens felt comfortable talking about the issues going on in their lives, and could feel confident going to an adult authority figure for help. But, unfortunately, we don’t live in that world, and I think that we need to think about girls who are not fortunate enough to have a good relationship with their parents.

Proponents of Proposition 4 want you to think that it protects teens, and they are marching out a tired old story about “Sarah,” a 15 year old who died after a botched abortion, to support their argument. What they didn’t tell you about Sarah is that she was in Texas, not California, and she was married, and therefore would have been exempt from notification laws. What happened to Sarah was tragic, but a notification law would not have prevented it.

They also tell a story in the voter guide about a girl who was abducted, abused, and taken for a “secret abortion,” claiming that Planned Parenthood didn’t report the abuse. Medical providers are mandated reporters, people. If a doctor treats a 14 year old girl who is obviously being sexually molested and held captive, that doctor must report it. Proposition 4 doesn’t change that, because doctors are already obliged to report suspected cases of sexual/physical abuse of children.

Proposition 4 is also a slippery slope, because anything which undermines safe and legal access to abortion is something which undermines women’s rights and control over their own bodies. After parental notification, are we going to see spousal notification? Rapist notification?

What we need is better sexual education for young women, and a focus on providing safe spaces for women to talk with counselors about sexuality, birth control, and other issues. We could cut down on teen abortions by empowering girls with the information they need to make better choices, but instead we want to treat them like property.

Vote no on four, people. It’s wrong for California, and it’s wrong for women.

So there’s a section of the debate that I wanted to address in a more in-depth fashion, because I think it was pretty important. It’s the part where the moderator asked about Supreme Court justices, and the discussion devolved into a conversation about Roe v Wade. (Which, while an important Supreme Court decision, was far from the only decision, although it is on the line.)

Specifically, let’s take a look at this selection of quotes from John McCain (I was going to excerpt the whole section, except that it’s very long. To see the quotes without editing, here’s the debate transcript.)

I would never and have never in all the years I’ve been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That’s not appropriate to do…I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications.

Let me talk to you about an important aspect of this issue. We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it’s got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who’s facing this terribly difficult decision..I don’t know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America…Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother. You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That’s the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, “health.” But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We’ll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country. But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it’s vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we’ll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we’ll help take care of it.

So, there are a couple of issues going on here. The first paragraph I excerpted above is part of his discussion of “litmus tests” for the Supreme Court. He actually went a whole long thing about how you can’t use a “litmus test” to judge qualifications, yet states that support of Roe v Wade would make someone’s qualifications questionable. Doesn’t that kind of mean that you are, uhm, imposing your ideology onto your choices for the Supreme Court?

The second paragraph has a whole lot of things going on, and all of them need to be talked about. First, he says that he wants to give women “courage” to make a hard choice, yet he actually supports abrogating that “choice” altogether by making abortion impossible to obtain. How is that a choice? How it is courageous to be forced to keep a baby you don’t want? Including, yes, a baby that threatens your own life, which is when we get into the health of the mother issue.

You don’t see it in the transcript, but in the debate, McCain put the word “health” in quotes, scare quotes, with a huge sneer on his face, as though women’s health isn’t something which needs to be protected. He blathers on about the rights of the unborn, and apparently has no respect for the already born. He belittles the horrible situations in which being pregnant is, in fact, a health threat, and a woman must indeed have the courage to make a difficult choice. An incredibly difficult, awful choice. Women do not wake up and decide not to be pregnant when they get late term abortions.

How is it compassionate to belittle women’s health? How is supporting women’s choices not compassionate? How is encouraging women to think about all of their options lacking in compassion? You know what’s not compassionate? Forcing rape victims to have babies. Forcing young girls who have been raped by their fathers to carry the results of that rape to term. Telling women that, in a time of medical crisis, the life of the very much wanted and loved baby inside is worth more than theirs.

To say that caring about women’s health is “extreme” or that the pro-choice movement is “pro-abortion” is awful. Caring about women’s health, or anybody’s health, is a great, natural, human thing. It’s a good thing. We should be all about caring about women’s health. And, as someone who is very proudly pro-choice, let me tell you that I am most certainly not pro-abortion. I think that abortion is a very difficult, awful, and ultimately personal decision, and I would never tell a woman that she should or shouldn’t get an abortion. I’ve accompanied women on abortions, supported women during abortion recovery, and talked with women about their options, but I don’t promote abortion. And most people in the pro-choice movement feel the same way. Abortion is just one choice on the table.

Which made it all the more awful that when Mr. Obama said that both sides could probably agree that reducing unwanted pregnancies was a good thing, McCain interrupted and was incredibly snide and rude. Because, you know what? We should be reducing unwanted pregnancies. I think that this is something both sides of the movement should be able to come together on. I would love to live in a country where there were no abortions except in cases where the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother because all babies were wanted babies, and women were never raped, and women were never victims of incest. That’s probably not going to happen, but we could at least try. Hey, we’ve reduced the number of unwanted dogs and cats radically, why not do the same for people?

And I would like to note that abortions declined during the Clinton Administration, and rose in the Bush Administration. Why? Because Clinton focused on women’s health, sexual education, and benefits for low-income pregnant women. Bush took that all away and replaced it with shrill rhetoric about abortion.

And yes, by all means, let’s provide the support for women who want to carry their children to term. Let’s overhaul the foster system so that it actually works, allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt, provide pre-natal care for all women for free, support post-partum care and benefits for women who want to keep their babies. Let’s promote healthy babies, and adoption as an option, and healthy mothers. Let’s provide all those benefits you and your cronies regularly deny, Mr. McCain, and make women’s health a priority.

McCain, and his radical anti-choice running mate, are not pro-woman. As Obama rightly pointed out, McCain opposes equal pay for equal work. His running mate believes that abortion should be banned, even in cases of rape and incest. Mr. McCain thinks that women’s health is “radical.” His running mate thinks that being pregnant as a teen makes you “grow up real quick,” and that women should throw their potential and lives away to fulfill some sick, twisted religious belief.

The McCain campaign thinks that working for equal rights is working for the “liberal feminist agenda.” Feminists have an agenda all right, but it’s not liberal or conservative. The desire for equal treatment under the law, equal rights, and equal access transcends partisan lines. I would fight to the death for a woman’s right to vote Republican, carry an unwanted baby to term, and put it up for adoption, just like I’d fight for a woman who votes green and sues her employer for equal compensation.

You might not agree with me on the abortion issue, but I’d like to imagine that you can agree with me on these poits:

1. Women deserve equal pay for equal work.
2. Women’s health is not a “radical” issue, but in fact a very basic right.
3. Reducing unwanted pregnancies is a good thing.

There’s a letter which has been making the rounds, encouraging people to donate to Planned Parenthood in honor of Sarah Palin, thereby ensuring that a thank you letter gets sent to her. It’s meant to be a consciousness-raising form of protest, and I actually thought it was pretty clever. (Needless to say, numerous people are stepping forward to take claim for the original idea.)

Which is why I was surprised to read Jezebel’s critique of the scheme. Personally, I think that the critique was poorly thought out, and lame, but I wanted to take the time to respond to it anyway, because that’s just how I roll. Basically, the argument there is that by donating to Planned Parenthood, people will be robbing Obama of donations.

And that’s wrong, on multiple levels.

First of all, I suspect that most people are capable of donating to both, should they choose to do so. It might mean splitting a donation, sending $30 to each instead of $60 to one or something, but every little bit counts, and Obama relies heavily on small donors.

Furthermore, donations don’t just take the form of money. Someone could choose to donate $60 to Planned Parenthood, and to canvass or work the phones for Obama. Man on the street campaigning is really important, especially right now, and in a way it can be almost more valuable than just sending money, especially in swing states/communities.

However, it’s more problematic than that. The assumption is that everyone who would donate to Planned Parenthood would also donate to the Obama campaign, and that is not true. I, for example, would donate to Planned Parenthood, but not to Obama. Planned Parenthood is an organization I support. I like that they provide reproductive health care services to women who need them, and the fact is that they always need more money. I don’t support the Obama campaign, because, as stated elsewhere, I don’t like Obama. As a commenter noted,  being anti-Palin doesn’t make you pro-Obama.

People are calling the Planned Parenthood protest “a stupid idea” in the comments, and I think they are totally missing the point. The point is to alert people to the fact that their reproductive rights are under serious threat in a McCain/Palin administration, and to encourage people to donate to a great cause. And, of course, I love the idea of seeing the McCain campaign deluged with thank you cards from Planned Parenthood: they apparently experienced a big uptick in donations as a result of this circulating email, which is awesome.

If you don’t have a lot of money to spend on donations, you can put your money where it counts and donate to the Planned Parenthood Political Action Committee, which can spend that money on political advertisements to promote candidates which support Planned Parenthood. It’s like a nice double-whammy. I think we need to be thinking ahead about protecting reproductive rights in this country, because even if Obama wins, I think there’s going to be a lot of pressure to limit reproductive freedoms. It’s time to be proactive, not reactive, people.

It’s clever little ideas like this which mobilize people, encourage them to donate and get active when they might not otherwise do so. Jezebel, why would you want to pee on that?

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, which means that the world is asea in pink, and people are being told that if they buy special branded crap, it will help people with breast cancer. Obviously, there are some serious problems with this, and it’s unfortunate that people don’t explore the issues a little more.

I’m not a fan of breast cancer, or cancer in general. I think that researching cancer is important, as is educating people about cancer so that they can detect early signs, and protect themselves from potential carcinogens. But the thought of dedicating a whole month to breast cancer awareness seems a bit disingenuous.

Breast cancer is a huge industry. And numerous organizations have started “pinkwashing” their products to take advantage of this industry, because they have learned that people will buy things as long as they are pink. Most of the products sold to promote breast cancer research? Only a small proportion of the funds gathered actually goes to breast cancer organizations, and, of that, only a tiny portion goes to actual research, prevention, and education.

Buying plastic crap is not the way to address the issue of cancer. Donating directly to reputable organizations is a good start. Being personally informed, and informing others, is also a good way to combat cancer. Women should be doing breast self exams, they should be getting routine mammograms when they reach an appropriate age, and they should be avoiding potential carcinogens. (Like, say, pink plastic crap.)

How did breast cancer get to be such a huge industry, when there are tons of other cancers and diseases out there that also urgently need research? I suspect it’s the symbolism. Breasts are a potent and visible emblem of femininity, and they make a great, easily-accessible symbol for cancer education and targeted campaigns.

Instead of buying pink stuff, maybe we should be talking about why  breast cancer is on the rise in industrialized nations. Why the culture of treatment expects women to be strong and perky, rather than sick and pissed off. Why it is that we have our heads in the sand about cancer while women and men die.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Sarah Palin lately, in that way that I read reports about her and cringe, thinking that she is actually being advanced as a serious candidate for the position of Vice President of the United States. I can’t help but view her as a gimmick, a last-ditch effort, not a genuine candidate, and it seems that a lot of people feel the same way.

Which brings me to a topic I have been hesitant to approach, which is the treatment of Sarah Palin in the media, and in blogs, including sites that I normally think of as pretty progressive. Because, quite frankly, she is receiving some unbelievably sexist treatment, and it infuriates me. It also infuriates me to see the Republicans just discovering feminism, and calling people sexist when they question her qualifications or making legitimate comments about her fitness to serve, because it makes it that much harder to address sexism about Palin in the media.

If you want to attack Sarah Palin, fine, have at it. There’s plenty of ammunition, from her lack of qualifications to her obvious corruption. I’m also fine with involving her family, since families are very much a part of the political arena, and she’s used her family as a political tool, which means that it is fair game.

But I am sick and tired of seeing Sarah Palin attacked because of her gender.

Calling Sarah Palin “Caribou Barbie” is sexist. Referring to her looks is sexist. Making fun of her hairstyle, accent, and fashion is classist, but it also smacks of sexism (e.g. “women in politics should dress/act more fashionably”). Depicting her in a sexualized relationship with McCain is sexist. Even referring to her as a gimmick, as I did above, is kind of sexist, although I argue that if the Republicans had chosen an inexperienced and corrupt male governor from a state with a tiny population, I would call him a gimmick too.

Clearly the Republicans are terrified of letting Palin out of their control, not so much because she is a woman but because she is clearly not ready for this. Inevitably, the tight control of Palin’s appearances has led to comparisons with a delicate lily or a shrinking violet, and some commentators have suggested that the Republicans are being sexist by keeping her from us. I don’t think they’re being sexist, I think they’re just trying to exercise damage control before this whole thing blows up in their faces, and that would be true of any clearly inadequate candidate chosen in a petulant fit by a nominee who has no self control and is known for impulsiveness. But the situation feeds the sexism, and the accusations of sexism from the Republicans as the media chafes at not being given any access to her.

Sarah Palin is about a lot more than her gender, although the Republicans certainly made a sexist decision in picking her as a candidate solely because of her gender. Yes, she appeared in beauty pageants. Yes, she has a figure which is considered conventionally attractive. But these things have no bearing on her ability to serve the United States.

You know what does? Her experience, her beliefs, and her politics. So stop calling her Caribou Barbie, stop making fun of her because she was a beauty queen, and start focusing on the real issues, like the fact that Palin has totally distracted people from McCain, and his very real, very scary, and very alive political views. Focus on the fact that she is part of a crazed Christian sect that performs baptisms to protect people from witchcraft. Focus on the fact that she is obviously clueless, at sea in a world she doesn’t understand, and barely keeping her head above water. And, yes, focus on the fact that she is next in line for the Presidency, and that if something happens to McCain, she is clearly not prepared to take control of Washington, which means that she is going to turn into a puppet president at the mercy of the GOP, which may be, cynically, everything the GOP wants.

Palin is going to get creamed on Thursday not because she is a woman, but because she isn’t ready for this. And that, in a way, is a huge shame for women in the Republican party, because it will make it that much harder for another woman to climb that high in the party ranks. Choosing Sarah Palin actually put women a step backwards. Far from shattering the class ceiling, it added an extra layer by creating a figure of ridicule and uselessness who is going to be blamed if McCain loses because she was a woman, not because she was a crappy candidate.

Now, quick, go protect women’s reproductive rights!

As many of you (I hope) are aware, the Department of Health and Human Services is in the process of reviewing a set of regulations which would allow health providers to refuse to participate in medical services they object to. Basically, this is designed to give to the fetus-fundamentalists an out, although I suppose it could potentially be extended to other health services as well, ranging from providing hormones to transsexuals to heaven-knows-what.

The big concern here is that providers could refuse to give out birth control, emergency contraception, and condoms in the name of personal ethics. The claim is that the regulations will protect service providers from having to be involved in abortions and sterilizations, but, quite frankly, I think that’s bunk. Medical providers who object to abortion and sterilization don’t work for clinics that provide these services, and I can’t think of many doctors who would force their staffs to participate in them.

If you don’t want to provide services you have an ethical disagreement with, then don’t work in an environment where you might be obliged to provide those services, people, it’s that simple. I, for example, will never work as a realtor because I hate the real estate market with a passion, and I can’t imagine myself selling overpriced second homes to rich yuppies from the city. I’m making a personal choice to avoid a situation where I might be forced to compromise my values, and, guess what, SO CAN YOU!

What’s really going on here is a sinister attempt to undermine reproductive rights, and you should be very angry about it. The comment period for the proposed regulations closes on 25 September, so we only have a few more days to make our voices known. And the ACLU has made it easy for you: all you have to do is pop over to their website, and they have a pre-written letter all ready to go. They encourage you to modify it a bit, and then you click “send,” and they make sure it gets to the right place. Planned Parenthood has a similar page.

Whether or not you support abortion, I would like to think that you are a huge fan of women’s health. Providers which offer abortion and birth control counseling also offer prenatal care and counseling, along with regular women’s health exams. This law would threaten these providers, making it very hard for them to do their work. If you are opposed to abortion, I humbly disagree with you, but I can’t see how you could rationalize a wholesale selling out of women’s health in the guise of preventing abortions from occurring.

In this country, nothing is certain, and that includes women’s rights. The people most likely to suffer under these regulations are women in rural areas, who may not have many choices when it comes to providers, and poor women/women of color, who often have restricted options as well. There is already a huge class divide when it comes to access to medical treatment in the United States, and it’s a divide that shocks the rest of the world, so let’s not give them any more ammunition, ok?

Women in this country already have a lot to contend with: don’t make it impossible for them to get the medical care they need.

Let’s talk about sex for a moment, since Mr. McCain seems so determined to bring it up in his attack ads against Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama, McCain tells us, wants to teach kindergartners about sex before they can read, clearly as part of some complex liberal scheme which will be revealed at some point in the future. McCain, of course, supports abstinence-only sex education.

First of all, McCain totally misrepresented comprehensive sex education, which is what Obama was supporting, and, in the process, he totally dismissed a very serious issue. This seems to be pretty typical of the kind of politics the McCain campaign is engaging in, which apparently involves creating trumped-up charges to skirt actual issues. I realize that this is pretty common in politics, but I hope Mr. Obama can get Mr. McCain back on track with the issues soon, because we’re in some pretty darn muddy waters at the moment.

So what is comprehensive sex education? Well, for kindergartners, it’s basically about learning that bodies come in all shapes and sizes, that there are some differences between boy bodies and girl bodies, that you should love and respect and care for your body, oh, and that sometimes people want to violate your body. For kindergartners, that basically boils down to good touching and bad touching, and a discussion of stranger danger, and when you should go to an adult for help. (And which adults you should seek help from.)

McCain apparently thinks that we shouldn’t be empowering kindergartners with tools they could use to resist predators. Mr. Obama disagrees, and released a great comment on it (which I linked to last week), in which he discussed the fact that, unfortunately, child predators do go after kindergartners, and that sexual abuse of children is a very real issue, and that, therefore, we do need to talk to young children about these issues. Personally, I think that if comprehensive sex education saves one child in a class of 30, it’s worth it.

Does Obama support handing out condoms to kindergartners and discussing anal sex? No, of course not, because that is not age-appropriate sex education. But he does support laying the groundwork early, so that when children do start to receive more direct sex-ed in middle school, they are prepared for it, and they can make educated choices about the issues which will face them as they grow up. So that children know that their bodies should be respected, and that they do have the power to enforce personal boundaries (and to save themselves thousands in therapy bills later).

McCain just wants us to say “close your legs,” and leave it at that.

Needless to say, I support Obama’s stance on sex education, because I think that comprehensive sex education has proved to be for more effective, valuable, and useful. I was talking to a gynecologist recently who was telling me that in her practice, she’s run into young women who barely understand what a menstrual cycle is, let alone how they can become pregnant. I find this deeply disturbing. Abstinence-only sex education harms young men and women pretty directly, and it also promotes body shame and embarrassment, rather than telling people that their bodies are pretty cool things.

McCain is missing the point if he thinks that sexual education is just about sexuality. A good sex education program is about physical and psychological health, gender, and a variety of social issues. Graduates of abstinence-only programs are really missing out, and I think that’s a fundamental failing that could bite America in the ass later.

I think we can all agree that Michelle Obama is a pretty awesome lady. And a very snappy dresser; that woman has some serious style, man. But, talking with Baxt the other night, I stumbled upon something about her that’s been troubling me: her hair.

I know what you’re thinking. Fretting about the hair of a candidate’s wife sounds so petty and unimportant, especially when it’s a white person talking about a black woman’s hair. Perilous ground. But Michelle O.’s hair is important, because of what she’s chosen to do with it. Now, it’s her hair, so she can do as she pleases, but I think that the decision to straighten her hair has some interesting implications, especially when you consider that a lot of black female politicians opt for straightened hair, while black men seem to go for close cuts; I can’t think of many mainstream black politicians sporting natural hair front and center, and I wonder why that is.

Personally, I think this is very intriguing. Now, I’m just a white girl here, so I maybe I shouldn’t be talking, but I think it’s kind of sad that Michelle’s hair is straightened. Because, the thing is, I love nappy hair. I think that there are few things as beautiful in this world as a black woman loving her natural hair, because, darn it, black is beautiful, and those stiffly coiffed straightened helmets just make me want to cry. I love the texture of natural hair, I love the way it looks, I love all of the awesome things that can be done with it, and I love to see women celebrating their hairitage (ha ha) rather than trying to fit it into a box.

Now, not being an owner of nappy hair, I am obviously not personally acquainted with issues like how to care for and style natural black hair, and maybe it’s a real pain. But it seems to me that straightened hair probably takes a lot of work too, and it feels…sort of like a betrayal, somehow. Here we have this black family that might be inhabiting the White House in a few months, which is pretty darn historic, but Michelle O. still can’t let her hair down, so to speak. I may be talking out my behind here, but I think it would be inspiring and empowering for younger black folks to see a woman in the White House with natural hair, and it would be a nice wakeup call for white folks, too.

I note that Malia and Sasha are both sporting natural dos (which change now and then, as hairstyles do); I wish their mother would follow suit!

I may not be a huge fan of the Olympics, and the direction they are taking, but it’s kind of hard not to follow the Olympic coverage, since it is everywhere. And, I admit, I am actually rather interested in the pure intent of the Olympics, which is seeing athletes at the top of their field competing with each other. Olympic athletes are on such a high level that it is pretty damn awe inspiring.

Poking through the Times, I discovered an Olympic athlete who may be my new personal hero: Natalie du Toit.

Natalie du Toit is a swimmer who competes for South Africa. That’s not terribly remarkable. What is remarkable is the fact that Natalie is an amputee, competing in an able-bodied Olympics, and that, in my opinion, makes her a complete bad-ass.

See, the thing is, to compete in the Olympics, you need to be able to dominate a series of preliminaries, and to prove that you really are among the best of the best. I would hazard a guess that swimming with one leg is, uhm, REALLY HARD, and the fact that Natalie has managed to train herself to compete at the top level with one leg in only seven years is pretty much amazing. She’s a serious competitor.

I love that we are starting to see more disabled athletes in the Olympics, and I personally find it rather inspiring. Disabled Olympians rise above hardship to become among the most talented athletes in the world, and I would love to see more coverage on competitors like Natalie. Michael Phelps may be a dolphin in the pool, but in a way, I find her accomplishment much more notable. It sounds rather corny, but she proves that it really is possible to be all you can be, if you are focused enough.