I Don't Think We Need to Earn The Right to Life

I think I'm a socialist. I've been muddling over it all day (really, for several months, but especially today). Here's the reason why: we have a right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. There may be a qualifier on “happiness”, but there isn't one on “life”. We have a right to life. Period. Our ability or willingness to subscribe to society's idea of “earning a living” doesn't matter. It's a right. 

There's a question I'm sure most of you immediately thought: We can't just have people living off our backs can we? Sure we can. Do they deserve to die? To starve? To freeze? No. The only place in this country you're guaranteed basic food, housing, and healthcare is in prison. It's something we are only assured of earning via crime.

Everyone needs to have FREE: clean water, fresh food, housing, healthcare (medical, dental, vision, mental, alternative... all healthcare) and education (Preschool-PhD). Those are the basics. This is where each person should be in life if we've merely coasted and accepted the generosity of others. Why? Because with our basic needs met, our minds are free to find true education and inspiration. Who, with a belly full of organic produce, a good night's sleep, a healthy body and unlimited educational opportunities, is going to sit around and do nothing?

Each person on this planet has something to contribute to society. It seems lofty to say, and I will place a qualifier on it: not every person on this planet will contribute their something to society. However, I think in the vast majority of cases, people would, with basic needs met and ample free time, do things of value. Some of those things would have monetary value, and here I would still allow a free market to thrive. People would pay for jobs based on how much they valued them, and people would accept jobs they thought were worth it for the money. These were split between government-subsidized industries and collectives and luxuries markets. The vast majority of things would still be luxuries markets. Technology, junk food, automobiles, entertainment and many more would remain traditional “capitalist” businesses. They would hire workers and people would work in order to afford the many varied luxuries (anything from meat to diamond necklaces).

In the vast majority of cases, people would spend at least some time working, in order to afford whatever luxuries they desired. In a few cases, people would choose to dedicate themselves to trades that aren't traditionally valuable (volunteering at the Humane Society or helping raise your grandchildren, for instance). And in a very, very few cases, people would languish.

There would be a few people who only worked enough to get TV service and booze. Some would just shut down and sleep all the time. However, as long as we ensure that work pays better than crime, they would contribute a few productive hours. But think about it a different way. In our current system these people would likely be “public nuisances”, the stereotypical “loud drunken homeless man”. If that man had food and a basic place to live and a couple hours a week easy work to afford to soak himself in alcohol... it would still be better than having him out on the street miserable himself and harassing all of you.

Perhaps it's my astounding naivete, but I also think we'd have far fewer addicts if clean drugs were readily available (for a reasonable luxury cost) and drug rehabilitation was free. People would also be less likely to become addicts if they didn't feel the need to drown their dire circumstances.

Alright, this is getting a little out of my league, but I'm going to try it anyway. What would this look like structurally? Firstly, the government would regularly seize unused and abandoned properties and turn them into free housing for those who needed it. With these would come public parks' conversions into giant bio-dynamic farm/gardens farms where people can pick up free local produce AND play sports and climb jungle gyms. Yes, this means meat would be a luxury. If you live in Seattle, Oranges a luxury; in Florida rice a luxury. But the goal would be for a sincere overabundance of food be produced. Everyone would be able to take as much as they wanted and there'd be leftovers and they'd all get tossed... into the giant composting system that supplies dirt to the neighborhood farm (did I mention all the free housing is getting composting toilets and rainwater catchment and locally-produced green energy?).

People would live in these places for free, guaranteed small but adequate, safe, and comfortable housing. Basic luxuries, such as private internet (there would be free computer labs in neighborhood community centers & libraries) or TVs, would be available. People would live in these places as long as they want, all their life, or only until they can afford the upgrade to a larger, paid apartment space (or even private home).

Taxes on earnings and profit would fund the non-profit systems of healthcare (medical, dental, vision, mental, alternative), basic housing, peace officers (not “police”), transportation, emergency response, education (including college), and conservation. These systems would benefit all people, especially those who run industry, and thus people would pay taxes for them. Private business, of course, would be allowed to develop alternative and “luxury” plans in all these industries, but the basic needs would be taken care of regardless of a human being's “economic value”.

As many systems as possible would be locally-based. Food, energy, housing and food should all be created mindful of the surrounding climate. Food will be varieties easy to grow in the region. Water will be collected as locally as possible. Housing would be built out of local materials. Energy harvested via wind, water, or sun. The systems would be interconnected, so that they might lean on each other in times of need, but generally would be self sufficient. Advertising, insurance, finance, and many other “industries” which do nothing but create “money” and waste time, would cease being a drain on society and would free up time and energy for humanity to put towards more positive (but less “profitable”) ways to spend time.

Teaching, writing, reading, learning, running, making friends, teaching the neighbor to swing dance... these are all things you do with free time which benefit you and benefit your community by proxy. They have no proven capitalist economic value, but that doesn't mean they lack value. So that's it. I think everyone has something to contribute. And I think that even if they don't care to share that contribution, they still have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How I Came to Terms with Being Pro-Choice

This is something I don't admit very often: I used to be pro-life*. Not in a big, scary, religious way. Not in a slut-shaming, hateful way. In a quiet “I won't kill a clam for food... why is killing a fetus okay?” way. The pro-life liberal is a rare beast, but I used to be one. I couldn't really understand how one can draw a line where what was a fetus becomes a “person” with “rights”. And even long after I accepted the difference between a pre-viability and post-viability fetus... I was still uncomfortable.

Why? I've been a vegetarian since I was 2**. The idea of killing a chicken can actually bring tears to my eyes. Did I ever think chickens deserved the same rights as humans? Never. But I was always uncomfortable with killing... with the death penalty, with animal testing, with war. I was pro-life in that I was against killing, pure and simple.

When I first became pro-choice I thought of abortion as a “necessary evil”, a right that wouldn't be needed if we achieved universal healthcare, birth control, education, maternity leave, childcare, and other social supports. I saw abortion as a symptom of our system, where having a child means losing education, jobs and familial supports and where feeding an unexpected child can be too difficult. And while those concerns are still valid, I know now that the right to an abortion needs to be inalienable and permanent.

And there's only one way I've figured out how to explain it. Someone, somewhere in the world today desperately needs a kidney transplant and I'm their match. I have a spare kidney. Going through surgery to donate it would have it's dangers and complications, but I'd have a very good chance of making it through. It would be traumatic, and painful, but I could give that person life. I could choose to get on the donor list, and maybe I should.

But would you force me to? Would you tell me that in order to give this man life I had to give my kidney, no matter how I felt about it? That it was my duty to give up my body to a complicated, traumatic procedure with marked health risks because otherwise I'd be “killing” someone else?

What if you said that in order to not have my body violated by this surgery I'd have to drive across the state, stare at a photograph of the man who needs the transplant, and then “think about it” for 24 hours? What if I had to pay $500 to get out of this transplant? What if I had people screaming “murderer” at me because I refused?

It doesn't actually matter if you think the fetus counts as a “human” or not. Forcing a person to put their body in danger & their life on hold to preserve the life of another is immoral in and of itself. It doesn't matter how they ended up pregnant. It matters that they don't want to damage their bodies (and potentially their lives) for a fetus, no matter what it's potential.

Would I have an abortion? No. Like I explained, the idea of killing a chicken makes me cry. But that's the point – I am pro-CHOICE. And I think that whether or not pregnant women choose to continue their pregnancies, they need to be fully supported in that decision. That's why I don't just believe in universally available & free abortion. I also believe in free childcare, mandatory maternity leave, and a food stamps program large enough to ensure no child ever goes hungry. I think adoption needs to lose it's stigma and foster care needs to be fixed and schools need to give world class educations to all students, not just those with wealthy home & school clubs.

But I also believe that the right to bodily autonomy is an absolute. And that means abortion needs to be a RIGHT. Forever.

* Disclaimer: I was 12-16 at the time... so cut me a little slack.

** Yes, really. I also began reading graphic anti-vivisection literature at age 6, had my “Angry Atheist” phase at age 8, began obsessively following election cycles at 11 and became a Pagan before my 13^th birthday. It's a weird thing.

Why Can't Two Parents Work Part Time?

 
There's a debate that's been going back and forth forever about stay at home parenting. Is it good?  Is it bad?  Is the influx of women into the workforce feminism's best accomplishment or the family's worst nightmare?  Or both?

Back in the day the norm, or at least the ideal, was for the woman to stay home and cook and clean and care for the family; the man went out and earned the money outside the home. Now the norm is for the man and the woman to work... and the woman to cook and clean and care for the family. Elizabeth Warren even wrote a book, The Two Income Trap, about how middle class dual-income families aren't getting their fair shake.  Do we (as a society - not individually) really need two incomes per family?

This graph shows how productivity has skyrocketed while wages have stagnated.  This increase in productivity has caused an overabundance of labor (why we're always trying to “create jobs”): there is more supply than demand. If the workforce shrunk significantly it would likely help the economy, as in many way's we're now too productive. As productivity increases you either have to increase demand or decrease the number of workers.  (Note: part of this is that Americans work too much... or at least, they work more than everyone else)

Let's take all that information and sit with it for a moment. What if we all saw that and decided it would be better NOT to have so many folks working (or at least not the crazy hours most of us do). That perhaps having a stay-at-home parent is a good idea, because caring for your kids yourself is good and also because the labor-market is oversupplied and it's contributing to how difficult it is to find work.  A lot of crazy conservatives have written about how women/feminism/"misandry"/selfish mothers have destroyed the economy, and they use many of these points (but they're jerks, so I'm not going to link to them... google it if you wish).

Stay with me here, because I'm not ready for that plan. While I think people who genuinely want to be stay-at-home parents should enjoy their stay-at-home lives, I don't think we as a society should pressure one parent into staying home... 'cause it's going to end up being the women. And besides, some people like their jobs.

That brings us to my plan. Why don't both parents work part time? It seems so simple, really. Instead of the old one-income model or the current two-income model, we switch to a two-part-time model? Imagine a world where people split their time... part time being caretakers, part time being breadwinners, part time doing whatever it is in life they love. Women wouldn't be forced back into the kitchen, men would get to spend time with their kids, and queer folk might get a little less of that awful “who's the man” question.

There are a lot of problems that we need to address first: a broken tax system, a lack of quality free education, getting ourselves a first world healthcare system, and ending penalties for part timers. Without these things the model I've just laid out won't work.

But what if we could do it? Quality time with kids, less stress on the workforce, more home-cooked meals, and happier workers all without blaming women or telling them it's all their fault just because they wanted to be treated like people.  A gender-neutral "American Dream".  As someone who comes from a generation that seeks work life balance, I see a big appeal to this.

Through all this, it is worth mentioning that I don't think everyone should get married and/or have kids. But given that our society is built around a two-parent with children model we should consider ways to make that model better.

What do you think? Is it worth moving to a model where both partners are part-time-homemakers & part-time-breadwinners?

Feminist Horror Films

You know, I thought about writing a "welcome to my blog" post, but that seemed lame.  So we're gonna' jump right into the fun stuff.

I love horror films. A lot. So much so that I had a gore 'n' horror themed birthday party. In February. In spite of the sexualized violence that's systematically portrayed in the horror genre, women have a lot more agency there that they don't in a lot of other genres like action thriller or romantic comedy. Even if they die, at least they fight. They plot, plan, scheme, and retaliate.  But sometimes there's a horror film that really takes the time to attack the anti-woman tropes of the film industry. While no movie can be 100% feminist and all of these films have their issues, I think they still deserve some love.  I've included trigger warnings for each film below each films' description so that you go in prepared.

 __________________________________________________________________ 

Ginger Snaps

  

This Canadian Body-Horror flick is one of my all-time favorites. It uses lycanthropy as an analogy for puberty. It's bloody and terrifying and littered with the dead bodies of household pets. One thing I find fascinating about this movie is that it contains the only onscreen portrayal of date-rape against a man I've ever seen in a film. All the women in this film are strong, complex, and have interesting character development. The protagonist, Bridgette, is not once sexualized in the whole film. That alone gives it a spot on this list.

Film Trigger Warnings: Suicide, Rape, Graphic Violence

Absentia

A Kickstarter funded film that delivers slow, creeping terror. There is almost no blood or gore, but that doesn't keep this film from twisting you up psychologically. It's about a woman who's husband disappeared without a trace years ago. Her sister comes to stay with her for moral support while she goes through the process of having her husband declared dead. Pregnant with another man's baby and trying to move on with her life, she starts having visions of her (late?) husband. It's a quiet film that has a very realistic feel, especially when it comes to the complex dynamics between the sisters.

Film Trigger Warnings: Drug Abuse, Homeless Abuse, Domestic Disturbance

The Caller

Another psychological horror film, this time centered around a young divorcee named Katy. She moves into a small apartment after her divorce and tries to start over, but keeps getting calls from an old woman she doesn't know. The problem? That old woman claims to be calling from the past. As she begins to entertain the caller, who seems to only need a friend, Katy finds herself drawn deeper into the old woman's grasp. A great film with a female protagonist AND antagonist.

Film Trigger Warnings: Psychological Abuse, Child Abuse

Teeth

A lot of people have written a lot of things about this film. It's been called the most and the least feminist film of all time by many people. However, I think it's still worth watching. Teeth, for those of you who don't know, is a film about Vagina Dentata. Specifically, a young evangelical girl named Dawn who just might have teeth up there. As she learns about the power, both positive and negative, of sexuality, she goes through a remarkable transformation. I'm not a big fan of the ending to this film, but it still has a lot of interesting scenes that break the traditional horror-movie mold.

Film Trigger Warnings: Rape, Sexual Torture, Sexual Assault, Graphic Violence, Assault by a Doctor

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane

Tried and true slasher terror with a feminist twist. There is very little I can say about this film without spoiling anything, but it's worth watching if you can handle the gore. While at first it seems like a standard “cabin in the woods” style horror film, it's a beautiful analysis of the Virgin/Whore complex that's so inundated in the horror industry. The film is aware of it's tropes and uses them to shocking advantage. It also has the scariest daylight scene I've ever seen grace a movie screen.

Film Trigger Warnings: Incredibly Graphic Violence, Peer Pressure, Torture

Mama

I may or may not get reamed for including this here, but I really liked the feminist messages of Mama. It's not Guillermo Del Toro's best film by a long shot, but it's definitely interesting. It follows two little girls whose father murders their mother and intends to kill them as well, but is stopped short by a supernatural creature. The girls grow up in the woods under the care of “Mama”, but are later found by their uncle, who brings them back into society. But it's ultimately a story about two little girls, a motherly monster, and their uncle's punk-rock girlfriend, Annabel, who didn't even want to be here today! While many have criticized the films maternal focus, I really liked the way Annabel cared for the children. She didn't turn into a super-mom, and she loved them on her own terms.

Film Trigger Warnings: Violence Against Children, Suicide

May

 So the only problem with May is that by telling you that it's a horror film I've already sort of spoiled it for you. So please, try to go see the film without reading up too much about it? Like, most of the posters for the film contain spoilers.  How lame is that?  It's about a lonely, socially awkward girl with a lazy eye named May. She had a horrific childhood where her only friend was a creepy doll in a glass case, and now she (surprise!) has trouble connecting with other people. All she wants is someone other than her very creepy doll to love her. She is sweet, quiet, and awkward, working in an animal hospital stitching together post-op cats & dogs all day.

Film Trigger Warnings: Sexualized Violence

The Loved Ones

I hesitated about whether or not I wanted to include this here, not because it isn't phenomenal, it is, but because it's so damn hard to watch. This is hands down the goriest, bloodiest and most triggering film on the list, but it's also absolutely amazing. The main characters are a disturbed goth boy named Brent and a girl with a crush on him, Lola. When Lola finds out he's going to prom with another girl, she kidnaps him and has her own torture “prom” at home. This is a torture-porn flick that manages to truly turn the tables. This is a film which not only doesn't shoot from the male gaze, it does the opposite. The male victim, even before his capture, is overtly sexualized. Throughout the film we cut back to the other kids, the ones at real prom. They make normal teenage life decisions and those scenes are really disarming and sweet. It's this cutting back and forth that keeps the viewer tuned in to how horrific the violence is. This film artfully prevents that “numb” feeling, leaving you squirming in your seat the whole way through.

Film Trigger Warnings: Graphic Violence, Sexual Violence, Incest, Torture, Suicide, Drug & Alcohol Abuse, Domestic Abuse, Contentious Consent, Self-Harm/Cutting, Depression

 __________________________________________________________________ 

So, what are YOUR favorite feminist horror films of all time?  Let me know!  I want to watch them!  I'm sure at some point I'll do a "part II" with even more feminist horror films as I find them.