Hello Amplify!
It's been a while since I've written, but I have an article that I think all of you should read, and that the amplify community needs to be aware of and involved in.
Here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/over-it_b_1089013.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false
I think the reasons why I bring this up are pretty self-evident, but I'll say them anyway. Eve says without women, there is no future. But it's also true that without us, without young people, there is no future. So as we fight for better sex education for young people, for better reproductive health and rights for young people, let's also consider how we can eliminate rape culture and make the whole world better for young people. For ourselves, for each other, for our parents before us who haven't managed to make this happen. Their generation changed the world, true- it was after all the young people of the sixties and seventies that made "sex-positive" a reality. But there is work yet to be done. We need a culture where no means no, and yes means yes. 
Stand with me. Stand with Eve. Let's make this happen.

 Good morning everyone! I am having a wonderful start to my day, and here's why: Congress is considering adding the cost of contraceptives to the list of things required under "preventative care"! This is great news, because everyone knows that birth control gets really expensive, really fast, and it's important for women to be able to prevent pregnancy. Furthermore, condoms are important for everyone (not just women!) to prevent STDs. So even if they don't decide to include the pill (We know, Roman Catholic Church, that's WAY too radical. Women having sex and enjoying it without worrying about having babies. Craziness!), I would be happy if they could just include condoms, because to me that's the very definition of preventative care.

And if that's not argument enough, here's another:
"“We have rigorous evidence that every dollar invested in family planning saves more than a dollar in welfare and social service costs for children that result from unintended births,” Ms. Sawhill said."

But the best part is this:
"Congress left it to the administration to define the preventive care benefit and adopted an amendment by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, requiring officials to pay special attention to the “unique health needs of women.”
Lawmakers said they also meant to require coverage of annual checkups and health assessments known as well-woman visits; screening for domestic violence, heart disease and breast and cervical cancer; and doctor visits for women intending to become pregnant."

Amplify people, could we maybe all get together and send this fine woman a thank-you note? 

Full article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/health/policy/03health.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24

           Emotional abuse doesn’t get talked about very much. If it does, the people that do tend to add a little disclaimer like, “It’s not as bad as physical abuse but…” But do we really need to compare, when so often they occur at the same time? Although I am certain there are many people who have had harder lives than I have, and many who have had it easier, I try not to compare. I try to feel grateful for the things I do have, and like my feelings are not less valid if my experience wasn’t as bad as it could have been. Because in my case, and I would venture to guess, in many of yours, it was bad enough.

            The other reason I think no one talks about it is because we are afraid to discuss something that is so subtle and so difficult to quantify. How do you quantify how negative a person’s tone of voice is? How scary their yelling is? How worthless you felt? But one of the things that we do here at Amplify, and something I am so proud of, is talk about things that are hard to quantify. We talk about hard facts like how much more effective comprehensive sex education is than abstinence-only education- and then we talk about how it makes us feel to see young people being treated like they shouldn’t even know how their own bodies function.

            So I’m going to go out on a limb, because that’s what we do.  Emotional abuse is damaging, and it’s the kind of damage that’s hard to fix. And from an informal survey of the people I know, it’s startlingly common. When I started this, I really didn’t want to talk about myself, but I’m realizing that I’m going to have to. (The limb is now a leaf… and I’m standing on it anyway, bear with me.) I have to because unless someone starts putting concrete effects in a list for people to see, no one's going to realize the range and intensity of effects it can have. 

                I have been emotionally abused by my father my entire life. And it has had a long and painful list of effects on me. To begin with, I cannot stand to be yelled at- I will shut down. I can’t stand to see men angry- even if it’s not at me I will shut down.

I tiptoe around my house when he’s home, but feel free to make all kinds of noise if he isn’t. I even notice that I don’t like to eat in front of him, because eating feels too loud. I won’t take medication in front of him, even if I need it, because in the past he’s called me weak for it. I spend a lot of time in my room if he’s home.  Even then, I don’t sing or play my instrument or make any kinds of loud noises- my room is as silent as I can make it.

Now that I’m in college, and moved out, things are better, but only a little. I still relate to men very differently than I relate to other women. I’m careful about where I walk on the street, what I wear, and how I act. I maintain the kind of emotional distance from my male friends (until I’m very certain I can trust them) that I would never think to keep from my female friends (although, as it turns out, there have been a few I shouldn’t have trusted so freely).

For a long time, I didn’t exercise because I would have repeated thoughts of “You’re too weak to do this, go back to your books. School is what you're good at, why don't you just stick to that?” I still never want to ski, or be near snow, because of the only memories I associate with them. I’m slowly making my way into running and biking, because I enjoy them, and because I don’t want them to be taken away from me as they have been thus far.

I have problems in my romantic and sexual relationships because I’m afraid of men in general. I could never identify why until recently- I always assumed I’d seen too many ads with the models that look like they’re about to hit something (and they always did really bother me). The trust that I have built up with the person I’m currently with took forever- and we still have problems sometimes because despite his constant reassurance and support there are days when I can’t say “no” and that’s a problem. Because then he doesn’t know when my yeses mean “yes” and when they mean “no”, when my un-excitement signals genuine ambivalence and when it signals a paralyzing indecision- if I don’t have a better idea, I’ll probably just say yes- but it comes out sounding like a no. Here’s the biggest problem of all: I can’t tell the difference either. I don’t know until later because in the moment that yes seems like the only answer there is. By the way I’m not just talking about sexually- I’m talking about the most mundane things imaginable, like what to do that day.

I don’t argue, I compromise. I don’t yell, ever. I avoid conflict like nobody’s business and I spend a lot of my life feeling like a doormat, and like I'm way too nice to people because I don't know any other way to be.

 I’m afraid to have a male boss, because I know that it will be a very difficult relationship, and one in which I am very likely to take offense easily. I’ve found a career where that’s a very remote possibility, and when I think about other jobs, I consider how much male contact I could handle, and it isn’t much. In high school there was a male teacher who felt free to get right in my face and yell at me and I never said a word, even though looking back I wish I’d reported him. I turned away and swallowed my tears and even though I look back and think, “I’d like to give him one good shove!” a small part of me knows I might still have the exact same reaction I did then.

I don’t like to watch movies or read books where there’s a strong father-daughter relationship because I can’t identify with it, not even a little bit. In fact, I start thinking there must be something secretly wrong because I can't imagine a father and daughter having a real relationship- I don't know what it looks like.

Some day, a long time from now, I’m going to walk down the aisle alone. I will say it’s because I’m a feminist, because I’m independent and responsible for myself and no one needs to “give me away”. And even though that’s true, I would probably like my mother’s support in what will be a very scary and exciting minute in my life- the kind of minute you really want someone else there with you for. But I can’t insult my dad, and I’m only just now learning how to say “no” to him. So no one will walk me down the aisle, and no one will ever replace my dad for me. I have been, all my life, my own second parent, working together with my mom. 

            Now I know- it could be worse. But still, it’s enough. Luckily for me I have in my arsenal one very important secret weapon that I think every survivor of any kind of abuse has to have. I may not always feel brave, but I know that I am resilient. I bounce back, and every day I learn to live my life with a little less fear and a little more freedom. I don’t do it out of courage, I do it because I can’t never eat again, or never make noise, or never walk down the street, or never exercise, or never have a male friend, or never have another boyfriend, or never have a job, or never have a male teacher, or never watch movies that have characters I don’t identify with, or never get married if that’s what I want to do. I can’t have that many nevers in my life because I don’t want even one “never” in my life.

So if there is someone out there who needed to hear this, I just want to tell you: I know there isn’t a lot of information out there to tell you what to do or where to go. I know what it’s like to feel helpless, but I’m talking to you know from a place of someone who has started to help herself. It’s exhausting because all you want is for once in your life someone to take care of you for you, but you have done it for yourself before, and you can do it now. Take care.

Today, while catching up on my Feministing, I read this article about how young women do not get acknowledgment from older feminists. So many people in their comments expressed a desire to start a new org, just for young people, to talk about reproductive rights.
Oh my goodness. Where do I begin?

Do you ever feel like one of the Whos from Horton Hears a Who? As in, you want to shout, "We are here! We are here! We are here!" over and over until FINALLY the someone hears you? Because I sure do. Alright, here I go.

A message for the world: Young feminists are HERE! I would never say that I could speak for all of them, but I'm going to give you one big general rant about my top three issues tonight, and anyone else who wants to can feel free to chime in at any time.

With so many states tightening restrictions on abortion due to the perceived threat of the health care bill, with ab-only education back like the zombie it is, with ever more victim-blaming rape apologists being published, I want to cry for the state of women's rights in this country.

More...

 Just posted on Barack Obama's facebook is this link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/sets/72157623521613817/show/

Moving, isn't it? To see all those people, especially the ones that say "I'm here for you!" or "I'm here for everyone!"

On that note... in this health care debate which, fortunately or unfortunately, encompasses amplify's primary purpose of increasing the quality and quantity of sex education... who are you here for?

Here's my answer: I'm here for America. I'm here because I want my nation to always embody a spirit of the utmost generosity, as part of how we strive for "a more perfect union." Because that's the key, isn't it? Union.

So what's your answer? Who are you here for?

Everyone at Amplify knows why health care reform is important. It's important because there are far too many Americans who are uninsured, far too many being dropped from their plans or unable to get coverage, and far too many struggling to pay for the coverage they do have. It's important to young people because we're the one's that often have gaps in coverage, between school and work, between jobs, between our parents paying (maybe- if they can) and us starting to pay for it ourselves. It's important because we believe in real equality. And it's crucial, because the youth of America know better than anyone else that we have to think in the long term. 

But here's why health care is critically important to me: I believe in a woman's right to choose- not just the right to choose NOT to have a child, but also the right to choose TO have a child.

On March 12th the White House used the number 41 to talk about why health care is important (as a part of their "Health Care by the Numbers" campaign). Here are their reasons:

41 -- that’s the number of leading economists -- including three Nobel Prize winners -- who sent a letter to President Obama and Congress yesterday urging the swift passage of comprehensive health insurance reform to curb skyrocketing health care costs. [Source]

41 --  is also the percentage of adults under the age of 65 who accumulated medical debt, had difficulty paying medical bills, or struggled with both during a recent one year period. [Source]

Two weeks ago, a racially themed party took place, hosted by UCSD fraternities. Because it was an off-campus event, the students could not be punished by the school, however the fraternities have suspended some of their members. The event, called "The Compton Cookout" was billed as a party "to show our respect" for Black History month- but it advised students on how to dress and act ghetto so they could be "honorary n*****s" for a day. The administration responded by producing buttons that students could wear with the slogan "Not in Our Community," immediately condemning the incident and reaffirming our principles of community, and by publishing the report jointly produced by the Black Student Unions of several UC campuses called, "Do UC Us?"
 
After this occurred, I was pretty embarrassed that this happened on my campus. I felt the party was probably more in poor taste than outright racist, but that the administration had taken appropriate actions to show that this type of behavior would not be tolerated. I especially felt this way after reading the "Do UC Us?" report, where I found out that UCSD admits 2 to 3 times the number of Black students than actually attend each year. In discussing the incident with a friend, he said immediately that he was against affirmative action because it allowed under-qualified applicants into the school. However, when I pointed out that those several hundred students who were accepted, but did not choose to attend, were every bit as qualified as he and I, he changed his mind. I think it's very important that as a school we try to find out why these qualified students are not choosing UCSD, and if we can make this a more welcoming community for them. Obviously after these incidents though, we're going to have even more trouble than before.

More...

 Today, as a part of his lecture on sex and the brain, my Cognitive Science professor decided it would be appropriate to discuss what the effects are of sexual dimorphism in the brain.
Males, he said, have a much more difficult time controlling their sexual impulses than females. As evidence, he pointed out that erection and ejaculation are reflexes- controlled by neural circuits in the spine, not the brain (The same as a reflex in your arm- that's why you pull away from something hot before you even consciously realize it's hot.). This is true- but even if erection and ejaculation are reflexes, that doesn't mean a man has to have sex... except he said it means they do... which confused me, to say the least. He also said that women have more inhibitory circuits in their brain, so it's easier to stop themselves from having sex. And that's why we should all pity Tiger Woods, according to him.
Next he talked about sexual orientation and how it may be that because women have "more choice" about whether or not to have sex, being a lesbian is a choice, whereas being a gay man is not. By this point I was getting seriously annoyed.
Then he went on to discuss what men and women are better at. Men are better at spacial thinking, women are better at things involving language or color perception.
I was too upset to approach him after class today, but as soon as I can I want to ask him for some further reading on this subject. I want to see the studies that he kept referencing (but didn't name) and I want to try to understand their methodology. 
But here's the thing: my personal experience tells me these results just can't be right. My partner and I are a perfect counterexample to quite a few things he said. We both love sex but I honestly think I have a harder time staying monogamous than he does. I do it because I believe in honoring my promises, and I believe that what we have is too special to share, but some days it's hard, especially because we're long distance. He on the other hand has not the slightest trouble.
The evidence presented in these studies bothers me because they can be used as excuses for why men "just can't stop themselves" or why women "just shouldn't expect to like sex as much." They take the individual out of the picture and leave... what? Meaningless data, in my opinion. I reject these excuses. Not that I don't believe that my partner is special and unique- but come on guys, if he can do it so can you. Oh and women who love sex? Yeah, we exist.
Many of my beliefs rely on what is scientifically proven- for example, my belief that comprehensive sex education is a better solution than ab-only methods. So if reliable science shows this, I guess I'll have to say that yes, men and women are provably, biologically different. However, I will also insist that individuals are different. Women can be great at math, men can be amazing writers. Lots of women love sex. Lots of men know how to resist sex.
And if it is true that as my professor said, women have evolved more than men such that we have more control over our sexual behavior then I will turn back to my feminist friends and say, "Well ladies, I guess we need to find ourselves those rare few evolved men (you know the ones who understand seemingly simple concepts like the word "no," which science tells us is really not so simple!) and only sleep with them. It's for the betterment of the species, we're making sure any sons we have inherit such amazingly advanced brains!" 
If any of you have heard anything to confirm or disprove anything my professor said, please let me know. I'd be very interested to hear from you. As for me, I'm heading over to Amazon to get myself a copy of "He's a Stud, She's a Slut" now. Maybe after my professor gives me some further reading, I'll offer to trade ;).

 After watching Keith Olberman's special comment on the Tea Party movement, I was confused by a particular sign that I saw in the clip. It said, "Tea bag the liberal dems before they tea bag you."
Wondering what on earth that could possibly mean (and if that person understood what "tea bag" means) I went to the website listed on the bottom of the sign: freerepublic.com.
Well I didn't get an alternate definition of what "to tea bag" means, other than the one I already know from urban dictionary, but what I did get was this article, posted today:

(Canadian) Parliament Report Sounds Alarm: Low Birth Rate + Ageing [sic] = Financial Crisis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2454480/posts

Basically the author is writing about the challenges Canada's economy will soon face due to their falling population. It's true that when you have an aging population, you'll have more people to take care of and less people to care for them. But this writer apparently doesn't see why a population can't increase forever! It's a natural thing- populations increase exponentially until they reach a certain point, and then they fall gradually until they reach a sustainable level. It's not the end of the world. It happened naturally in France without any laws, but it also happened on purpose in China when they realized that in order to get to a sustainable population they needed to pass a "One-Child-Per-Family" law. There's a good reason to try to limit the population: to prevent people from going hungry. We already have a shocking number of people on earth who struggle with hunger daily, so why should we think that we can allow this to go on?
The author also writes that the mainstream media is trying to "diminish the fertility rate" and warns readers that "Such ventures may sound conspiratorial, but evidence for them abounds."
Actually it's not a conspiracy, it's not a secret, and what you're seeing isn't evidence of someone trying to limit a woman's fertility, but evidence of reasoned people finding ways to slow or reverse the growth of an unsustainable population WITHOUT limiting an individual's choice. And unlike many problems, there's a quick fix to this one: By letting women choose when they do and do not wish to have children. They will limit their own families based on how many children they want and can support. Apparently in Canada, the average is 1.5. I see nothing wrong with that, but the author says this is far below the "2.1 replacement rate." 

(As an aside to the author, should you read this, you need some remedial English and Math classes. 2.1 doesn't make sense as a replacement rate because there are only TWO parents. If your growth rate was 2.1 children per 2 parents, your population would actually be increasing. And "Aging" doesn't have an "e." Lastly, why did you put "Canadian" in parentheses? It's not grammatically incorrect, just poor style. Back to my rant...)

So is this what you're really afraid of, conservatives? You're so afraid of taxes that you are willing to pass laws banning abortion and contraception so that women will have more babies so that those babies will grow up and make a larger workforce so that the elderly can be supported for a minimum amount of money being taken away from that workforce?
Hmmm... which of those sounds like a conspiracy now- the one that gives women a choice, or the one that forces them to have babies, whether they can feed and clothe and care for them physically and emotionally or not, and then even tries to "change their attitude" about it? 
And what makes more sense to you- your theory that an economy can grow forever if we deregulate enough, and a population can grow forever (even though the space and resources on the planet are, in fact, finite) if we can just find ways to force women to have more babies- or those crazy left-wingers warning you that what goes up must come down? Hate to break it to you, but as Stephen Colbert once put it, "Reality has a liberal bias."
I can't wait for the day that the Republican party moves back to the center. When it does, maybe we'll be able to talk seriously about fiscal responsibility and how best to protect our economy and limit our government while still providing for the needy, caring for the sick, respecting the equal rights of everyone, and without harming the earth. That's my idea of a more perfect union. Not this crazed, racist, sexist, homophobic, regressive, and just plain illogical vision of the US that the Tea Partiers have. It's sad that their shrill cries are overpowering the quiet and intelligent voices of those who are reasonable and respectable in the Republican party- the kind of people we on the left would like to work with. 

Surprise! I'm not going to talk about Sarah Palin. Actually I want to talk about  Lt. General Tom McInerney who said this recently:

"If you are an 18 to 28-year old Muslim man then you should be strip searched," he said. "If we don't do that, we're going to lose an airliner," he explained.

Because all terrorists are Muslim, young, and men. Brilliant plan, General. It's foolproof! Just like it was foolproof when you put peoples names on lists.... like mine for example. I was on the watchlist from age 11 to age 17 (when I finally discovered the government redress program.) New rules are not going to make this better. We need to make the old rules work the way they were supposed to. In the meantime, Faux News, can you please put someone who has something rational to say on the air?

For video and an excellent article, visit Newsweek here: http://www.newsweek.com//frameset.aspx/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaite.com%2Ftv%2Fretired-air-force-general-suggests-strip-searching-all-young-muslim-men%2F