Sara Robinson wrote an article in Alternet last week, “Why Patriarchal Men Are Utterly Petrified of Birth Control.” (Hat Tip, Amanda.) It’s an excellent article and I believe it really underscores the heart of many of our current arguments about sex and feminism.

What I think needs to be added though is that it’s not just the technology that has changed, it’s that our attitudes have changed with it that creates the panic. Humans have always sought methods of contraception. Condoms have been around for hundreds of years. Diaphragms and the use of substances thought to be spermicidal dates back thousands of years. As the story of Onan reminds us, people have known about withdrawal since the beginning of recorded history – and recent studies show is it is incredibly effective if used correctly.

The other thing we learn from the way some religious traditions have interpreted the story of Onan is that the opposition to contraceptives has existed for centuries. And yet people continued to use them. It’s almost impossible to separate out the changing role of women with the decrease of taboo around contraception use, especially as technology made contraceptives more effective and easier and safer to use. The two trends obviously fed off of one another. Diaphragms made from vulcanized rubber allowed women some freedom, and then the pill and IUD gave even more. But those working women with planned pregnancies were the ones demanding more and better contraceptives. Now we have arrived at a point in history where not only is contraception incredibly effective – it’s also overwhelmingly popular – and that is what is creating a crisis for patriarchy.

New technologies are not always more popular and more frequently used as they advance. To draw a contrast – technology has also made weapons more effective and efficient. We can kill people with predator drones, atomic bombs and machine guns far easier than in the days of bows and arrows or even cannon balls and muskets. And yet we are growing less violent over time. If we were using modern weapons at the pace we are using modern contraception – there would be no people left on Earth at all.

Conservative Christians who oppose any form of contraception (and even those who allow Fertility Awareness Method) frequently refer to the popularity of contraception as “The Contraceptive Mentality.” It appears that this term was first coined by Catholics. The argument goes that if people use contraception and it fails, the woman will probably get an abortion because the fact that she was using contraception is evidence that the couple did not want a child. Somehow, Catholics believe that this makes contraception itself the cause of abortion. The logic is faulty, because before contraceptives were so widely available, women still sought abortions – and as contraceptive use goes up, the abortion rate goes down.

These people reject the rebuttal that we just need more and better birth control and better education about how to use it because they believe that contraception causes people to have sex when they do not want to get pregnant, and that if it did not exist those not ready for a(nother) child would simply abstain. There is no evidence for this belief, and Guttmacher Reports that “Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.” This does not include whatever percentage of women who giving up babies for adoption who did not use birth control when they got pregnant. That these women went ahead and had sex without using contraception even though they did not want to give birth proves that people will have sex, even when they do not wish to procreate. Additionally, if that 46%+ had improved access to contraception and information about how to use it correctly, many of those women would not have gotten pregnant unintentionally in the first place.

If there is such a thing as “The Contraceptive Mentality” I would argue that it is a good thing. When Margaret Sanger was teaching people how to use contraception, she was doing it because her dream was for every child to be a wanted child. Contraception does not cause a lack of interest in parenting. There have always been people who could not bear the burden of child rearing. We had ways of dealing with those people, whether they be abortions, early forms of contraception or “foundling wheels” where people could abandon unwanted children no questions asked. Instead, now we have the knowledge and the technology to prevent the burden of unwanted pregnancy. I find it far more humane to teach contraception than to build orphanages. It’s much better for people who love each other to be able to share their sexuality on their own terms than for them to live in fear from the exhaustion and bankruptcy that more children than they could handle can bring them.

What scares patriarchs is that more people agree with me. It’s not the mere existence of contraceptive technology – that’s been around for ages. The way that feminism and contraception have advanced and strengthened each other – and that this has culminated in a world where people accept contraception as a good thing and women’s equality as self evident are the revolutionary ideas they are attacking.

EDIT: The paragraph I objected to has been taken down. LI Families did not inform me directly, but when I shared this post on their message board another commenter pointed it out. Good work, LI Families!

On February 10, the website Long Island Families sent out an email and posted an article entitled “Mommy To Be Myths” debunking various old wives tales about pregnancy. I’m no expert, but most of it seemed to be sound and healthy advice that I had heard before. But the last one startled me.

Cut out your routine manicures/pedicures/hair appointments False. Although being in a very fume-filled environment is not the best for long periods of time for anyone, you will not harm your baby in any way by getting your routine mani/pedi. Scheduling your appointment for a quiet time at the salon will help cut out any fumes you may be exposed to.

I really object to the way this downplays the risks of the chemicals found in many nail polishes, nail polish removers, hair dyes and hair straighteners. It’s true that some brands of nail polish have become safer in recent years, but risks still remain in brands that haven’t changed and in many nail polish removers.

Additionally, the post mentioned nothing of the recent controversy about formaldehyde in a popular hair straightening treatment or the health risks of breast cancer and fibroids from hair care products frequently used by black women.

Finally, there was no mention that phthalates found in many common cosmetics pose a risk of hyperactivity once the child is born.

I know that pregnant women are bombarded with all kinds of pressure and unsolicited advice. But to simply hand wave away a legitimate concern is irresponsible. There are plenty of ways for a mother to be to relax without increasing the risk of harm to her or her baby.

Citizens of the United States respect our Political Ancestors, the “Founding Fathers”, more than the citizens of any other nation on Earth. Most nations respect their major historical figures, but we practically worship ours. We name our streets, social clubs and companies after them, even putting their images on our currency -as a reminder of what ideals we value. Thorough study of their deeds tells us much of the origins of our nation, but they should not be Iron Rails upon which we should set our future.

The Founding Fathers -or “Founders” if you’re into that whole brevity thing-  are a hard to pin down group -there were over 100 men we could call “Founding Fathers” -participants in the Continental Congress, the American Revolution, and Constitutional Convention. Many were lawyers, many were soldiers, all were white, male, and of some means. There’s a prevalent belief among politicians and pundits that if one could simply latch on to a Founding Father that shares one’s opinions, one could win every single argument they have about politics. This is not so, for many reasons.

Firstly, we must stop projecting our own political labels onto the Founders. Were they liberals rebelling against a heartless stodgy authority? Were they Conservatives securing their ability to make money without interference by bureaucrats? We cannot claim them as “Liberal” or “Conservative”, as these labels did not yet exist. The modern political spectrum is a product of the French Revolution, which began after the American Revolution ended.

Secondly, the Founders often contradict one another. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had a very public, very embarrassing feud during George Washington’s first term. Furthermore, one could easily contrast Benjamin Franklin with his fellow Pennsylvanian, Dr. Benjamin Rush. The famous deist libertine is nothing like the priggish puritanical physician (in his defense, Dr. Rush was a very charitable man, if a little boring). There has been more than enough ink spilled about every Founder, and they were not always in Harmony. The Constitution was vaguely worded to ensure it would actually get ratified, and each of the signatories argued what it actually meant after ratification.

Thirdly, just because an opinion was held by a Founding Father doesn’t make it correct. Jefferson didn’t believe black people were equal to white people. Despite his native brilliance, he held a very wrong-headed belief. Additionally, being racist doesn’t automatically make one as smart as Jefferson.

Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, there are various topics on which we will never know the opinions of the Founders. They all died before medical science had developed to the point that surgery could be considered remotely safe -the danger of infection made it a last resort. Abortion as we know it did not exist yet. They also didn’t know about heavier-than-air-flight, radio waves, or modern medical science. Were we to apply “Original Intent” consistently, we would not have the FAA, the FCC, or FDA. Say what you want about the effacacy these organizations, but the fact remains that there were things that the Founding Fathers could not anticipate, and in the passing centuries, we had to sort it out without them.

Most of the Founding Fathers were concerned about posterity, and imagined the United States was a “new order for the ages”, that would outlast them, their children, and their children’s children. No one doubts that they’d be pleased with the result, and pleased that people still honour them. But a country that devotes all its energy pleasing men long dead will not survive in the face of new challenges. We now have to trust ourselves. America needs to embrace the idea of a living Constitution, cease the deification of the Founding Fathers, and approach challenges in a way that is effective but just.

At least, I hope that’s what the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

In my review of Orgasm, Inc. I talked about the New View Campaign, and organization dedicated to challenging ideas about female sexuality promoted by the pharmaceutical industry.

Recently, I also watched the documentary “The Perfect Vagina” (hat tip Christopher Ryan’s facebook page) a BBC film about the growing incidence of labiplasty and other genital cosmetic surgery done on women.

The has FDA approved labiplasty in the United States even though the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a statement in 2007 against the procedure,

These procedures are not medically indicated, and the safety and effectiveness of these procedures have not been documented. Clinicians who receive requests from patients for such procedures should discuss with the patient the reason for her request and perform an evaluation for any physical signs or symptoms that may indicate the need for surgical intervention. Women should be informed about the lack of data supporting the efficacy of these procedures and their potential complications, including infection, altered sensation, dyspareunia, adhesions, and scarring.

The New View Campaign has started a petition, asking people to sign it and urge the FTC to regulate labiaplasty more strictly. I believe that this is an excellent course of action. Because sometimes these surgeries are performed because a person has a legitimate medical need, and because I believe that people should be able to modify their bodies as they see fit, I am not in favor of prohibiting this procedure. However, because of the risks involved, I do believe that women must be informed of them so that they can make an educated decision. Requiring surgeons to inform patients of all of the risks involved is one of the provisions the New View Campaign is calling for.

You can sign the petition here.

Last month, Senator Gillibrand announced her support of the Safe Chemicals act:

More than 84,000 chemicals are currently listed on the EPA’s database, many of which are used regularly in consumer products, but there are three classes in particular that have been found to cause hormone disruption and reproductive deformities when children are exposed in-utero and at young ages. The three major classes of chemicals which children are directly exposed are:

1. phthalates, found in soft plastic products like teething rings, balls, and plastic dolls;
2. BPA, found in hard plastic toys, such as action figures, electronics, and playmobil toysets; and
3. flame retardants found in children’s pajamas and bedding.

….

Senator Gillibrand is cosponsoring the Safe Chemicals Act, legislation introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), which requires chemical companies to demonstrate the safety of industrial chemicals and the EPA to evaluate safety based on the best available science. Specifically, the legislation would:

Require chemical companies to develop and submit safety testing data for each chemical they produce. EPA would have the authority to require any additional data needed to make a safety determination before a new chemical is introduced into commerce. The submission of this data is not currently required by TSCA prior to commercialization, and can only be requested by the EPA once they have reason to believe that a chemical poses a risk to the population.
Require EPA to prioritize existing chemicals for testing based on risk into one of three classes: immediate risk management, safety standard determination, no immediate action to facilitate a risk-based approach for analyzing the approximately 84,000 chemicals currently in the EPA’s database.
Allow the EPA Administrator to issue orders or initiate judicial proceedings to protect the public from chemicals that may “present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.”
Provide the public, market and worker access to reliable chemical information by publishing a database housing chemical information and decisions made by EPA about chemicals.
Establish a Children’s Environmental Health Research Program, which requires the EPA to establish an advisory board on children’s health as it relates to toxic chemicals, provides grants to support research into children’s vulnerability to industrial chemicals.
Incentivize safe alternatives by establishing a research grant program targeted at priority hazardous chemicals for which alternatives do not presently exist.

I’ve written before about my concerns about pthaltes and other toxic chemicals found in cosmetics and every day products. I applaud Senator Gillibrand and Senator Lautenberg for their work on this issue. If you live in New York or New Jersey, send them a call, email, or even a tweet or facebook message to thank them for their job well done.

Otherwise, you can contact your Senator and Congressional Representative through the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics by clicking this link.

By now you might have heard of SOPA – the Stop Online Piracy Act which has been introduced into committee in the House of Representatives. It claims that it’s goal is to protect copyrighted works on the internet, but in fact the definitions are so broad that many sites that are abiding by current law would be in trouble. In addition, there are no provisions for due process, as cnet news explains:

It allows the U.S. attorney general to seek a court order against the targeted offshore Web site that would, in turn, be served on Internet providers in an effort to make the target virtually disappear. It’s kind of an Internet death penalty.

More specifically, section 102 of SOPA says that, after being served with a removal order:

A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order…Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within five days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has drafted this letter that you can send to your elected representatives here:

I am a constituent and I urge you to reject the Internet Blacklist Bills (PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House). I am deeply concerned by the danger these bills pose to Internet security, free speech online, and innovation. The Internet Blacklist Legislation is dangerous and short-sighted, and I urge you to join Senator Wyden and other members of Congress, such as Representatives Lofgren, Eshoo and Issa, in opposing it.

Hat tip, Long Island Fail Road.

As someone who takes public transportation to work every day, I am happy to take advantage of the Transit Tax Benefit – I can set aside a certain amount of money from my salary every month, pre-tax, and spend it on bus or train fare. Currently the amount is $230 per month, which is a reasonable amount considering a NYC Subway pass is $104 per month and a Long Island Rail Road, New Jersey Transit or Metro North Commuter Rail pass can be over $200 per month.

If it’s so incredibly controversial to remove tax brakes for corporate jets, why can’t working people of all classes write off their commuting costs? And yet somehow this years budget will roll back the allowance to only $115 per month.

You can take action by sending an email to your member of Congress and Senators, and asking them to support H.R. 2412 and S. 1034, both titled “The Commuter Benefits Equality Act” which will keep the Tax Benefit at the current level. My letter is below

I am writing to you today to ask you to support The Commuter Benefits Equality Act. As a commuter, I face increasingly high fares every year and this tax benefit helps to reduce the cost. Public transportation has many benefits, one of which is a cleaner environment for all of us to enjoy, and so this incentive has multiple positive qualities.

At this time of economic hardship for so many Americans, I urge you to pass this bill so that there will be as few obstacles as possible for getting people back to work.

Last night, Adam and I attended the Intelligence Squared debate “Would The World Be Better Off Without Religion?” I am inclined to think that the world would be pretty much the same without religion. I don’t deny that religion is linked with tremendous atrocities – oppression, war and ignorance. However, I am not sure that these things are the sole purview of religion. As I said on twitter, religious problems also exist in a secular context – greed, bloodlust, prejudice all appear in our society in ways not directly related to religion. I think that a better way to state the motion would be “Does religion do more harm than good?” But as I have written previously, I think sometimes Intelligence Squared goes for the catchy title rather than a proposition that is easy to debate.

I think that the speakers were all impressive Matthew Chapman and A C Grayling for the motion and Dinesh D’Souza and Rabbi David Wolpe arguing against. However, I was a little disappointed with the fact that neither side really made an effort to frame the debate, and both sides seemed to be talking past each other. Chapman and Grayling cited ridiculous and cruel passages from the Bible and stressed that religion deters science and oppresses women and gay people. D’Souza and Wolpe spoke of the good things religious charities do and of how people need hope and to set high moral standards. Rabbi Wolpe pointed out that the other side kept stressing the text whereas he was talking about the actions of religious people. This was an excellent point, and wasn’t countered at all.

Still, I felt like there was a lot being left unsaid. I did get to ask a question. I asked, “For those in favor of the motion, how are the harms of religion different from those of nationalism and racism? And for those opposed to the motion, how are the good things about religion different from the benefits of secular charities, community organizations or having close relationships with family?” Chapman said other societal ills are “mistakes based on reason” and that the “horrors of religion” are based on “superstitious fear and delusion.” I’m not sure if he really means to say that racism is rational, but what I think he is missing is that superstition and delusion exist outside of religion. Rabbi Wolpe said religion is good because religious people do good works for a transcendental, enduring purpose. I find this also kind of silly and trite. What if your enduring purpose was because you wanted to be remembered after you died as a philanthropist? There are reasons people do good things for all kinds of philosophical, moral, and social purposes, some of which are selfish but as a person who enjoys art museums and a yearly concert at Carnegie Hall, I can’t criticize the “selfish” philanthropists too harshly.

As a Unitarian Universalist, I am glad that my congregation exists. I am interested more in ideas of orthopraxy – how we should live a moral life, and the faith I have that we are called to do good works – than theological debates about the existence or nonexistence of God. But I am in no denial about the atrocities human beings are capable of. I believe a case can be made that there would be less cruelty in the world without religion, but it was not made last night by Chapman or Grayling. Brilliant writers though they may be, they never specifically explained how religion discourages critical thinking or why it halts scientific progress. I understand those arguments thoroughly, but wonk than I am, I needed to hear them spell it out before I would vote for them. I was frustrated with D’Souza’s arrogance and odd non-sequitirs (if Catholicism is better than Hinduism because it lacks a caste system, then doesn’t Hinduism make the world worse?) I liked Rabbi Wolpe the best of all the speakers but he never explained why a religious person is better off because of religion than they would be if they simply were involved in secular charities and had an active social life. In his closing statement he made a touching statement about hope, but hope comes from all kinds of places, and is not solely the province of religion.

I maintain that the world would be much the same without religion, a few inspiring heroes, some terrible villains, and most of us falling somewhere in between.

Last month, I sent a letter to Mayor Bloomberg and my city councilman about the rights of the protesters at Occupy Wall Street. I received this response, dated October 24:

This is to acknowledge the receipt of your email in support of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s decision not to remove Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park. Thank you for taking the time to write and for providing me with the opportunity to respond.

I agree that ever American has the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations to express his or her opinions. I assure you that I will continue to support the right of all individuals to exercise their constitutional freedoms.

As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance with any other matter.

Kudos to Councilman Weprin for standing up for free speech!

Tuesday night Carrie Solages was all smiles at the Nassau County Democratic Headquarters Victory Party. As he thanked his supporters and family, he was exuberant and gracious. And he had every right to be. He had done something that Nassau Democrats had been trying to do for years with little luck – he unseated 16 year incumbent Republican Legislator John Ciotti, and as a person familiar with the history of the district, believe me when I say it was a truly Sisyphean victory.

The district is majority Democratic, but John Ciotti is popular in the community and for various reasons Democratic voters do not turn in as high numbers as Republicans do in the odd year elections when the county legislators are elected. However, there is more at play than a simple lack of enthusiasm. The Nassau County Republicans are notorious for their intimidation of Democratic voters, especially people of color, as I have written about previously. The difference is that this year, Solages campaign was able to capture this intimidation and racism on film.

Solages win is symbolic of so many things – a grassroots victory over an entrenched political machine, the power of the internet and ubiquity of digital cameras to influence a large number of people quickly, a community standing up and fighting back against racism, and also proof that sometimes – the good guy does win. Sometimes, justice is served, and the person standing up to the bully doesn’t get trampled, but is the triumphant hero. And this year, it wasn’t merely a dream, or an inspirational story liberals tell themselves to keep their spirits high, it came true right here on Long Island.

The final lesson to learn in this happy chapter of the 2011 elections, is that the Nassau County Republicans are not unaware of how and why they lost this seat. Tuesday night, two candidates who won reelection spoke of their unwavering support for John Ciotti.

Other Republicans stood up for Ciotti even as the numbers looked grim “Ciotti ran a great race,” said fellow North Valley Streamer and Town of Hempstead Councilman Ed Ambrosino. “I don’t care what it says up here, John Ciotti is a winner each and every day.”

“John Ciotti is a man of tremendous integrity, of tremendous character,” said Nassau County Legislator Fran Becker.

What fascinates me about these quotes is that they were uttered at the exact moment they will have maximum impact in both raining on Carrie Solages victory and minimizing the damage to their own reputations. In two years, no one will remember John Ciotti’s racist tactics and so statements supporting him will be meaningless as ammunition for challengers. There will be no consequences for absurdity of these statements. That they were made at a time when they cannot be held accountable for them shows a shrewd calculation, that they are aware of the power of their words. Ambrosino and Becker did not say these things two weeks ago when Ciotti’s campaign was going down in flames, because outright support for racist and intimidating tactics would have hurt their own electoral chances. By waiting until after the polls have closed on election night proves they know it, and this is important to remember. Future dirty tricks may be more subtle or not as cinematic, but still just as underhanded as what happened in front of Solages’ campaign office this October.