To Slice Or Not To Slice

Waiting to contract

 

If you are pregnant in the US, if you know someone who is, or who wants to be, read this. It will give you some idea how much Caesarean section – heavy-duty abdominal surgery designed to help a baby live when the mother cannot give birth vaginally – depends, not on medical emergency or advice, but on culture. Yes, within America.

 

In order to avoid “but the patient wanted it” whingeing, let’s first take a look at who has the power in childbirth and Caesarean sections.

 

One can give birth by oneself. Alone in the woods, within an earthquake-devastated building, in a cave while fleeing rapacious soldiers. All have been done. On the other hand, no one can perform a Caesarean section on herself. Not one person. With that kind of surgery, there must be a practitioner. That puts that second person in charge. No one is holding an IED to physicians’ heads to demand that they slice. Obstetricians (obstetrics is a surgical specialty; historically, few female medical students have been encouraged to specialize in surgery) have the power to just say “no” to a medically unnecessary request or demand for Caesarean section. They have every right to do so – pointing out that the patient shows no risk factors to indicate it – and they have the power. They alone.

 

That takes care of the whinge. Now:

 

Recently, much has been made of the fact that the American C-section rate is quite high. This nation is #15 from the top in global high section rates, and its rate of 30.3 is significantly higher than in other first-world nations.

 

It has been observed that of the top 10 countries worldwide, in terms of high C-section rates, eight have Roman Catholic majorities. (The remaining two high blade users are Iran and South Korea.) Eighty percent of the nations where a person is most likely to undergo C-section with its attendant risks – shock and sepsis; developmental harm to newborns; longer maternal recovery – and extra expense, have high or very high populations identified as Roman Catholic. Clearly, then, that religion and/or its physician adherents are somehow driving the C-section rate to much higher levels than the 15% recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). In Brazil, which stands at #1 in the world, the rate is an alarming 45.9; nearly half of Brazilian births happen under the knife.

 

The C-section rate in the United States varies up to 15-fold. Some states have very low rates. Yet some – see this graph – have rates that rival the highest global rates (New Jersey’s extraordinary C-section rate is nearly equivalent to #2 Dominican Republic and #3 Iran, where over 41% of people in labor are cut). Those states pull the US average up.

 

From the graph, there are 19 states (plus the District of Columbia, making 20 data-specific areas in all; they are listed in order at the end of this article) whose rates exceed the American average. As noted above, that US average is already high compared to other first-world nations. I wondered what cultural effects could be driving these very high rates of abdominal surgery, so I examined graphs and maps.

 

What I found is this:

 

Of those 20 areas with high C-section rates, three states also hold high percentages of residents who are Roman Catholic (3 million people or more): California, New York, and, as mentioned above, New Jersey. Only three. How, then, do we account for the remaining areas? Is there some distinguishing cultural “mark” common to them?

 

There is indeed. If we examine the pre-Civil War slave status of these high C-section districts – where legal ownership of human beings was permitted – we find that 14 of them were slave-holding at the start of hostilities in 1861. From lower percentage of C-sections to highest, bearing in mind that all these states’ rates surpass the US average, they are: Tennessee, Georgia, District of Columbia, Virginia, Arkansas, Maryland, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, West Virginia (which broke from Virginia during the Civil War, but prior to it had been the western portion of that “slave” state), Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana.

 

Note that Maryland and Kentucky were among four “slave states” that remained in the Union. Nonetheless, both permitted the ownership of human beings in 1861.

 

That is an extraordinary commonality.

 

There are, however, three states remaining of the 20 with higher-than-US-average rates of Caesarean sections, and these three – from lower to higher C-section rates they are Nevada, Oklahoma and Connecticut – seem to have nothing in common.

 

However, each of these three high C-section states borders at least one state noted above.

 

Nevada shares along border with California (with a high Roman Catholic population). Oklahoma borders both Arkansas and Texas (both former slave-holding states). Connecticut’s western border runs along New York State (with a high proportion of Roman Catholics).

 

It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that high C-section rates  in Nevada, Oklahoma and Connecticut are due in part to the cultural influence of their neighbors. It is worth noting that California has an outsize cultural influence on Nevada; New York impacts the most populous areas of Connecticut, in the southwestern section of that state, where many commuters live; and despite sports rivalries between Oklahoma and Texas, the latter sends thousands of its residents north to the former.

 

As others are doing, we can speculate what it is about Roman Catholicism that encourages, absent medical emergency, slicing into a laboring person rather than allowing her to labor and give birth vaginally. It could be institutional disrespect. Women are not yet allowed to be RC priests and are permitted only minor roles in the church. It could be a continuation of the cult of Eve-like and Marian suffering. A Caesarean section is so painful it requires anesthetic, and the recovery period is long and arduous – these new mothers must struggle to rebuild their abdominal muscles. It could be that Roman Catholicism encourages a mindset that rewards male intervention (nearly all obstetricians are male) and denies female bodily integrity and power.

 

What of the former slave states? There, too, we see a history of power inequities. Pre-Civil War, the dichotomy between the influential and those who had little say in their lives was much starker than in states where slavery had been abolished. It takes little effort to note the transition from imposing on vulnerable people who were black to imposing on vulnerable people – the hours of childbirth put one at risk – who are female. It puts the obstetrician in control of a process he normally would simply observe. He inserts himself into the labor and is thus in control of a person’s life and health, just as slave owners were in 1860.

 

To those who protest – “hey, what about all those obstetricians who aren’t Roman Catholic, who aren’t descended from families that owned other human beings?” – you’re right. However, when one enters into a culture, and wants to fit in, one adapts. One adopts the customs and traditions of the culture. Fail to do that, and you risk being considered a dangerous renegade. Of course there are physicians in all areas who are not Roman Catholic; likewise, some obstetricians in former slave-holding areas are descended from ancestors who never lived there.

 

To get along, go along. There is pressure on obstetricians. Patients apply some, but there is  more from the culture they work in. If fellow obstetricians are posting high C-section rates, and you’d rather not, how do you become what Australians call the tall poppy – reducing your section rate to the WHO-recommended 15%, or lower – without getting cut down and criticized?

 

Probably, you don’t. Most likely, you make excuses to yourself. You look for aspects of the labor, or the pregnant person, to blame. You form a foundation on sand before you slice.

 

That’s unethical and unnecessary. It harms both the patient and the new child.

 

As a society, we need to make Caesarean sections dependent not on culture but on true medical necessity. That means insisting on all levels – grassroots to hospital to national watchdogs – that obstetricians just say no to cultures that encourage appallingly high C-section rates.

 

Note: The 19 states (plus District of Columbia) whose C-section rates exceed the already high US average are (from lower to highest): California, Tennessee, Georgia, Nevada, District of Columbia, Virginia, Oklahoma, New York, Arkansas, Maryland, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Connecticut, Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Pregnancy

Let’s Stop Saying Women. Let’s Say People.

These are people, people.

 

 

The minute you say “women”, all of a sudden listeners place them in a separate mental pocket.

 

Close your eyes for a moment. When you imagine people, you see all sorts of humans, right? (Some of you may envision only men. Men are not the default, so go back to your caves.) Nevertheless – eyes open – the humans pictured above are people first. Yes, they’re people who are female, granted. Still, human beings, people, first and foremost.

 

An interesting thing has been happening over the past few years with regard to humans who were bought and sold prior to the Emancipation Proclamation in the US, and those who now live the same tragic existences all over the world, primarily in India.

 

They used to be known as slaves. These days, most journalists and even the guides at Thomas Jefferson’s home, Monticello, refer to them as people held in slavery or enslaved people.

 

You can tell the difference, right? A slave is not as human as an enslaved person. The latter is a person held in a temporary state of non-liberty. The former is, perhaps, subhuman and born to be owned.

 

Huge difference.

 

Think how a similar enormous difference impacts the human beings shown above. Referred to as people, they remain human. Called women, however, and something happens in the mind of the listener, particularly if dangerous cultural or political baggage gets in the way, as in this article regarding the politics of sexual violence in Egypt.

 

They become something less than people, as if we were speaking of dolphins or aardvarks.

 

Farfetched? No. Language carries enormous cultural weight and can cause confusion. In Spanish, for example, mujer is the word for both woman and wife. Asked by authorities if she is the “wife” of an injured man – spouses may give consent for medical care – a woman may well answer “yes” even though she is not legally married to him.

 

Language gives order to how we learn and remember. Language has power, and it offers power, as well. Witness the rise of Welsh-language schools in Wales, the persistent efforts of French speakers to make Quebec a separate country, and the efforts of billions of people to learn and improve their English, the current linguistic coin of power.

 

It’s just not wise to dismiss how we use words when their use either reduces power or increases it.

 

We should not have to keep making signs saying “Women Are People, Too!”. That’s so 20th-century.

 

We do need to begin replacing the words woman/women with person/people as much as possible.

 

It might sound awkward at first to talk about pregnant people, people with breast cancer, people who have survived FGM.

 

Though we do speak of pregnant whales, giraffes giving birth, and elephants that have survived poachers’ attacks.

 

If one, why not the other?

 

Doing so would point up the humanity of people who are female, rather than consign them to a lesser status in the mind of the listener. Calling them people gives primary acknowledgement to their personhood. Qualifiers – like the word female – are the secondary identification. Then again, speaking of people means that if they carry XY chromosomes, they too will need a qualifier. Male.

 

When we talk of people, we’ll make more sense than if we used words that mistakenly relegate others to a status below humanity.

 

Words like slave. And, unfortunately, women.

 

Stand firm. Use words with care. Up with people !

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism

We Need to Stop Obsessing About Marriage

 

Pause. Think.

 

How many truly good marriages have you known?

 

Straight, gay, even long-term partnerships. How many have been really happy and respectful?  Yes, of course, relationships over years contain ups and downs, but of the ones that make it through, how many are not just long in years, but healthy?

 

Not many, right?

 

This amusing-but-true Slate article demonstrates what can impel someone to want to blow up their marriage after kids arrive.

 

Beyond sharing the inevitable work that comes with children, there are other reasons for marriage break-up. Two people marry who really shouldn’t. One partner changes so much that the relationship is harmed. Or events outside the marriage impact it terribly. Or mental illness erupts. Or. Or.

 

There are lots of reasons for people not to be joined to each other. And really only one – that they do better together than apart – for them to stay married.

 

Unfortunately, the American obsession with preserving the two-parent family is hurting women who are being abused within their marriage, and their children, as this article demonstrates.

 

Researcher Sara Shoener, from the article: “My point . . . was that when we as a community frame marriage as a universally good thing for families, we bolster the obstacles intimate-partner-violence survivors must overcome to secure safety for themselves and their children, no matter their place in the social structure.”

 

We all know of low-income women who hesitate to leave abuse, who figure they must sacrifice their own health and safety in order to give their children an in-home father figure. Note that the sons of these abusive fathers can grow up to be abusers themselves, that daughters accept more abuse, and that men who abuse their wives are often also assaulting their children in hidden ways.

 

But what of higher-income families? They’re not as violent, right? Not necessarily.

 

Shoener notes, “Since the op-ed ran, I have been inundated with messages from women in upper-middle-class families who have been hiding their partners’ violence. Particularly for women who have dedicated their lives to raising children while their partners were the primary wage earners, leaving a violent marriage would entail an upheaval of their entire social and economic lives. For example, one woman wrote and said she was afraid that if she left her violent husband, she wouldn’t be able to afford her children’s school and extracurricular activities, thereby disadvantaging her children and removing herself from her support network. She described a life filled with tennis lessons, PTA meetings, afternoon play dates, and couples’ activities that would have to be sacrificed. The disadvantages of single motherhood look different for different women, but are frequently a factor in their decision-making.”

 

The reality is that the system, and the US insistence that marriage – any marriage – is better than two single parents, exposes children to violent fathers in order to attempt to buttress unhealthy marriages.

 

Shoener: “I observed a lot of social service and court systems [where] safety considerations were often overlooked . . .. When survivors [of abuse] resisted this arrangement, they risked being considered uncooperative or vindictive. In fact, many attorneys who represent survivors told me that they try not to bring up their clients’ experiences of abuse to avoid being seen as selfish or petty. Abusers could exploit this reality to garner more power.”

 

And the system allows them to do this, thus endangering not only the survivor of abuse, but the children.

 

In fact, men who have been demonstrated to be violent can still have legal access to guns and go on to commit murder, as this article shows. In the US, it happens every day.

 

How to change this marriage obsession in a reality of politicians who extol marriage per se as an intrinsic good rather than placing weight on the quality of the union?

 

“I would absolutely agree that children who are lucky enough to have two loving parents [in the home] are going to fare better on average than those who do not,” Shoener says. “But I’d argue that value is derived, in large measure, from economic and social resources — a house in a good school district, money for extracurricular activities, time to check homework — that single parents have a more difficult time accessing. There’s a large body of research that suggests that abusive relationships drain those resources, rather than contribute to them . . .. In my estimation, we could build a stronger community by better meeting the needs of parents in a variety of family structures, rather than focusing solely on incentivizing one that isn’t going to work for everyone.”

 

If we look at nations that prioritize children’s well-being (the Scandinavian countries, where parents’ marital status is unimportant compared to how they nurture their children), we see that there’s a stark divide between them and us.

 

Prioritize marriage – no matter what – or prioritize kids? It really can’t be both.

Let’s stop regarding a marriage license as proof of family health.

It’s never been that.

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Violence

The Truth Bites

On the left, marks of a bite to Italian footballer Giorgio Chiellini’s shoulder. On the right, the perpetrator.

 

In the recent World Cup 2014 group match between Italy and Uruguay, Luis Suarez (URU) viciously bit Italian player Giorgio Chiellini’s shoulder. This was no nibble. It was a full-on bite that left deep marks on Chiellini’s body and he will no doubt carry the scars for the rest of his life. After the assault, Suarez dived for the floor, claiming his teeth had accidentally come into contact with Chiellini, and that he was the wounded party.

 

He forgot the now-standard cameras surrounding the stadium. The game was taped. Although the Uruguayan press is downplaying the incident, we can see from replays that Suarez deliberately bent his head to sink his teeth into Chiellini.

 

Nor was this the first time Suarez bit an opposing player. As a professional he’s done it twice before. In 2010 (then with the Ajax team in Holland), he bit Otman Bakkal of PSV Eindhoven (also on the shoulder), and was banned for seven games. In 2013, playing for Liverpool, he was suspended for ten matches for biting the right arm of Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovich.

 

(In 2011, Suarez was suspended for eight matches for using his mouth – that time, for racially abusing Manchester United’s left-back Patrice Evra.)

 

This was not even the first time Suarez had attempted to orally rip into Giorgio Chiellini. Here’s a photo of that initial try last year at the Confederations Cup.

 

Social media has exploded with outrage and condemnation. Twitter is especially fruitful.

 

FIFA is trying to decide how to discipline Suarez. A few matches’ suspension? Ban him outright?

 

Meanwhile, professional and armchair psychologists are weighing in. One says adult biting is an impulse born of fear and panic. Others claim that the intensity of matches makes male athletes automatically clamp down.  Yet another theory is that Suarez’s biting erupts from memories of an impoverished childhood’s humiliation and frustration.

 

What are these people thinking?

 

Suarez is 27. He has been for many years a well-paid and idolized footballer. His childhood is past. And the intensity of matches? How about when Mike Tyson marched over and with his teeth tore off Evander Holyfield’s ear? No one blamed intensity then. Fear and panic? Suarez is a professional. Yes, it’s the World Cup, but no other player on the pitch is biting.

 

At least 160 people won money by wagering that Suarez would bite someone – anyone – during the match against Italy. (A Norwegian gambler received the equivalent of US $912.) They considered it inevitable, not because Suarez would lose all sense of proportion, but because they correctly predicted he would choose his moment and clamp down in an act of aggression and control and humiliation.

 

Think about it. What does it say when an unprovoked adult who is not in fear of injury or death bites another person?

 

It sends messages: You are less than I. I control you. You are subhuman, you are meat.

 

It is not that different from the dreadful South Asian rapists’ custom of biting their victims over and over, face, chest, wherever their teeth reach. Like here. And here. And here.

 

You are meat. I control you. If you live, you will forever wear the scars of my mouth.

 

That’s what Suarez’s bite is saying to Giorgio Chiellini and the two other people we know he has bitten.

 

How many more Suarez football bites have been hushed up? How many times has he bitten women? Children? I hope those whom he has scarred go to the press – in Uruguay, in England, the Netherlands, wherever Suarez has lived or visited – to tell us.

 

Chiellini’s outrageous wound might be just the tip of a rotten Suarez iceberg.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Football

The Spiritual Side to Fat-Paring

 

No caption needed, really

 

Once upon a time in America, pastors, priests, rabbis spoke against what are commonly referred to as the seven deadly sins: lust, avarice, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, pride (translation: intense sexual desire; insatiable craving for wealth; excessive eating/drinking; excessive desire for possessions; laziness; fierce anger or resentment; longing to own something possessed by or achieved by another; inordinate opinion of one’s own superiority).

 

Those sermons don’t often happen these days, and that’s a shame. Especially with regard to excessive eating and drinking, which – apart from causing all manner of medical ailments ranging from shortness of breath and impotence right up to the big C – has knock-on financial effects out the wazoo. In the UK – I’m not kidding with this one – hospitals are paying a premium for extra-wide fridges to store their extra-fat dead bodies before they must be hydraulically lifted on their way to the funeral home. Most of those bodies are chilled not because of old age, in case you thought obesity lengthened life.

 

If hospitals must pay through the nose for cold storage, it’s obvious they won’t have money for health-promoting programs like monthly well-baby visits. Thus fat adults are harming the health of small children by using up medical resources, even after the adults are no longer alive. My friends, that is a sin.

 

That the US leads the world in adult obesity is well-known. Few American church leaders are willing to chastise their congregation – as, Biblically, they are tasked to do – for the sin of gluttony. In fact, churches have been described as a feeding ground for obesity. In a 2006 scholarly article, the researchers found that overweight or obesity was more common in church attendees. Although they explained the result by referring to “multiple sociodemographic variables”, the simple fact remains that the preachers of these churches failed to remind their fat members, loudly and often, that eating much and exercising little is spiritually wrong.

 

Religions are not created equal. Some church-minded people (Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons, for example) prioritize weight management. Some religious communities have high rates of obesity (Baptist, 30%), while other have very low rates (Jews, 1%; Hindus and Buddhists, less than that). A 2012 study found that religious media use (watching televised religious programming, or listening to it on radio) was very highly correlated to obesity – since those people do not even rise up to go to church.

 

If everyone faithfully monitored their body changes, we would not need cautions from religious leaders – or Weight Watchers, for that matter. Many of us think obese people must be well aware of their condition. Not so! According to a recent survey, 55% of Americans do not perceive themselves as overweight or obese. Yet two-thirds (66%) of us carry way too much fat.

 

That’s a lot of self-deception.

 

The situation is not improved by the American healthcare “system” (really, a market), which recently ranked last among 11 developed nations. That’s right, dead last. We’re the Mississippi of the wealthy-nation world. Not a promising designation, is it?

 

So where are the spiritual people encouraging their flocks to care for their bodies as well as their souls? Largely, they’ve been silent. Partly, that’s because they, too, are toting a pantry around their waists. They’re somewhat embarrassed to talk about what is blindingly obvious. Often, they’ve washed their hands of the matter. “Not my job,” they say.

 

Ah, but it is. Gluttony, see, that’s missing the mark. It’s a mistake.

 

There’s a little light at the end of the tunnel. The huge Saddleback Church pastored by Rick Warren has begun an exercise and fitness program using the Daniel Plan. Co-authored by Warren with the help of several physicians, the plan came about when he realized he needed to let go of 90 pounds. Ninety whole pounds. He did it, too. But that came after confessing to his congregation that he had made eating errors for years (and sat around in meetings too much – another plug for the stand-up meeting), and asked for their support in his upcoming struggle.

 

While it was an unusual act on his part, it was not particularly brave, not on a par with facing down a snarling dog or rescuing a fellow driver from a crashed car that may blow up at any second.

 

In other words, any overweight or obese person of the cloth can do it.

 

They can also tell their congregations, look, enough is enough. What we’re doing (me and you and you and you) is unhealthy. It’s therefore acting against God. Think you’re a good Baptist/Catholic/fill-in-the-blank? Show me. Show us. There are so many ways to let go of unnecessary weight, but doing it with at least one other person is essential. We all need someone to encourage us, help us correct ourselves, call us on our bullshit.

 

Over the first year on the Daniel Plan, the Saddleback Church members collectively lost 250,000 pounds.

 

Go ahead, people behind the altar. Take that step.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Obesity

Got A Pregnant Person In That Book You’re Writing? Don’t Make Her Lactate Before The Baby’s Born.

Breasts during pregnancy. Got milk? Not yet.

 

I belong to a book club. We take turns selecting a monthly novel (and hosting the meeting, which often turns raucous), and because we have diverse tastes we get to read works we as individuals would never have picked from a stack.

 

Over the past months, we met a pair of authors who fell down on lactation.

 

The first was Marina Lewycka, who wrote the warm, wry A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian. We adored the novel but were less than enthused with her take on milk production in Valentina, the narrator’s elderly father’s detested new wife (page 237):

 

She pulls up on the brown oil-scarred lawn and eases herself out of the driving seat. Her belly is vast, her splendid bosom engorged with milk . . ..

 

No. Just no. Ask any breastfeeding counselor, any woman who’s nursed her child. Milk doesn’t come in until the baby’s out, when childbirth makes for hormonal changes in the mother’s brain, changes to signal her body that the energy she formerly used in creating a tiny human should now be devoted to feeding that infant. The structure is built for lactation – almost everyone’s breasts grow during pregnancy – but the milk itself? Not there yet, because not yet needed. It would be like using automobile factory resources to concentrate on the paint job when the car has yet to be built.

 

The latter author, the celebrated Rachel Kushner, wrote The Flamethrowers. It’s a terrific, finely crafted, well-researched book. Except for this (page 277) that includes a pregnant young woman named Anna:

 

The one with the microphone leaned in toward [Anna] and placed his hand on her breast.

She looked at him with a child’s mischievous delight.

“There’s milk,” she said, holding her breasts up . . .. She pushed with her hands, squirting a fine light stream up at him.

 

This passage actually contains two basic errors. One, of course she could have no milk, she’s still pregnant; and two, human milk does not eject in a single “fine light stream”. A woman who pulls her breast from her nursing child’s mouth will wet his face with fine light multiple spatters like a garden hose set to spray rather than jet.

 

Look, it’s not brain surgery. It’s basic physiology, for writers who have never breastfed. If you’re going to spend time checking your research on 1950s tractors (Lewycka) or Italian motorcycles (Kushner), use those same skills to make sure you do not, out of ignorance, burden your pregnant characters with abilities they cannot in real life possess.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Breast milk

Nice Guys For Real

 

 

In the aftermath of the horrendous shooting near UCSB (University of California-Santa Barbara) which killed six people and injured many more – the suiciding perpetrator claimed that it was “revenge” for his lack of success with girls, even though a longtime friend says the 22-year-old forever expected girls to come to him, he couldn’t be bothered approaching them – many people have spoken out:

 

The Washington Post film critic, on why the perp’s behavior was just farther over on the spectrum from the we-deserve-women ethos of Judd Apatow’s movies; the article contains an embedded video of the writer’s response to criticism of her initial article.

 

The Twitterverse, which countered “but not every man” protests with the powerful #YesAllWomen. That hashtag has been tweeted more than a million times. And counting.

 

And this massively great article with embedded video by a male YouTuber.

 

You must watch this one.

 

Because the man is trying to educate other males – “nice” guys, assholes, and dudes in between – about the fallacy of being anything other than kind and interested in the women around them as human beings.

 

Shock, am I right?

 

Not sex objects, not pieces of meat to be counted and disposed of, not a collection of body parts to use – human beings. With feelings, opinions, choices of their own, to be respected.

 

The same way men want to have their individuality, their personhood, respected.

 

Apparently a novel concept for some guys. Most guys. Almost all guys.

 

A girl’s attention is not a prize to be given to someone who strikes up a conversation, brings flowers, acts like a healthy person. You don’t get the woman by doing ordinary courteous things. She’s not a marker you receive for making the right moves. She owes you nothing.

 

Yet being a nice guy (correction, kind guy – “nice” is overused) doesn’t mean giving up dreams or opinions. It doesn’t mean not standing up for the right things. It certainly doesn’t mean regarding a woman as though she’s perfect. Human, right? Hence allowed her own imperfections.

 

And it doesn’t mean bitching because some girl doesn’t want a relationship with you. As the YouTuber points out, nice guys aren’t in the friend zone. Friends are in the friend zone. You want to be more than a friend, tell her. Risk rejection. Don’t complain if she says no. No is an okay answer. Accept it. Rather than calling her names, work on yourself. Get better. Not better as a PUA (pickup artist), better as a P (person).

 

Make it easy for a woman to say no. Women are frightened of what might happen if they say no to a phone number request; most would rather give a fake number than risk needing facial reconstructive surgery. No joke, NO JOKE.

 

#YesAllWomen is a terrific start on getting millions of men to understand that they don’t understand the world women live in. (I’ve said before in this blog that men ought to try to imagine alien beings, Thrids, at least seven feet tall and filled with lust for the adult male human anatomy. Solely the male. Guys, picture walking by a group of Thrids, getting to work on a crowded bus, going to a party. Gross and disgusting Thrid behavior, right?)

 

It is horrible that people had to die to get women’s experience and anger out there. But it was the tipping point. You cannot stuff the truth back in the bottle, no matter how uncomfortable it is to acknowledge.

 

And those nice guys the shooter claimed to be one of? Yeah, like kind-guys-for-real insult women, threaten them, try to push them off ten-foot-walls, write manifestos denying their right to exist, then go flaming through a series of drive-by shootings. Besides being mentally ill, the guy was an over-privileged jerk who should have been arrested or in custodial care with a psychiatrist.

 

Definitely not a kind guy.

 

Watch the video, and forward it.

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Misogyny