Sunday Open Thread

 

"Hey, That's No Way To Say Goodbye" - The Decemberists

It's been a gorgeous fall weekend here, but I've spent the bulk of it inside trying to bleed out a brief.  I'm totally aggravated with myself for procrastinating and struggling.  I'm way too old for both things.  So I'm afraid I've barely glanced at the newspapers and, amazingly enough, have bascially not been online for the entire weekend.

- I did want to comment on this piece by Kate Bolick in the Atlantic that was getting a fair amount of play in the blogs the other day.  It's a rambling affair, a muddle really, discussing both the fact that Bolick is single at the age of 39 and the growth in the percentage of unmarried adults in the U.S. generally.  Bolick palpably laments having broken up with someone at the age of 28 for no real reason that she can recall, an act for which she seems to blame feminism.  Indeed, the entire piece seems like yet another in a series of attacks on feminism for having given women too many choices.    A couple of things jumped out at me -- first, Bolick takes her own personal situation and conflates it with the circumstances of a lot of other women who do not strike me as similarly situated.  Second, she doesn't seem to understand that the kind of personal decision she made in her twenties about marrying someone is not unique to women -- many of us had serious relationships at that age that ended for the same kinds of reasons, the difficulty of saying "yes, this is the one."  Believe it or not, this is a profound thing for men too.  And finally, it drives me nuts when people write as though the one night stand originated in the 1990s (or later).  Here's Bolick: "The early 1990s witnessed the dawn of “hookup culture” at universities, as colleges stopped acting in loco parentis, and undergraduates, heady with freedom, started throwing themselves into a frenzy of one-night stands."  No, no, no, a thousand fucking times, no!  As someone who started college in 1978, married to someone who started college in 1976, I can assure Bolick that universities were not acting "in loco parents" during the Ford and Carter years.  The 18-year old drinking age was in effect in many places, one could walk down the street in many major American cities and smoke pot without fear, quaaludes were abundant, soon to be followed by cocaine, and AIDS was unknown.  A good time was had by many.  And strangely enough, many of us also got married later on.

(One of the things that surprised me in taking my son on college tours last year was the degree to which colleges actually seem to be involved in the lives of students now.  When I was in school, it was pretty much sink or swim time -- our parents didn't email revised papers to us and our professors really didn't give a shit if we came to class or not.) 

I find these kinds of articles lamentable.  The freedom to make decisions, even ones that we  subsequently find regrettable, is the hallmark of a genuinely adult existence.  Women have fought fiercely for this autonomy -- when smart successful women like Bolick indulge in this kind of public self pity and attempt to imbue it with broader cultural significance, it just plays into the hands of the many who would prefer a return to a Victorian world.  I liked Amanda's take on it.   

What's grabbing your attention?     

Comments

[Paula B]

I'm reading Jonathan Franzen's novel Freedom, which deals with how members of a family and their friends handle (or don't handle) the responsibility that goes along with freedom, wherever they seek or find it. It's a tome, but worth the effort. Gorgeous writing and very complex characters.

As for in loco parentis, as you say, that practice was dead by the time students took over dean's offices, or early 1970s. I hate it when writers devote that much effort on a piece for a major publication, but don't bother to check their facts. It's one thing for us to take liberties on a running blog, but another for someone to get paid big bucks for a sloppy piece.

[kathy a.]

jeez, SC -- do i have to keep reading? i was doing ok, even with the poor me and the first whack of anti-feminist stuff, but i give up at the part where she says that as women have made strides, men have fallen behind, leading [at a glance] to blah blah blahbitty blah. marrying down. man shortage.

y'all know i'm a fan of anecdotes, but one woman's failed love life is not exactly a solid foundation for The Answer To Everything And Then Some. i can't really disagree with "a room of one's own" being important, but it seems a bit extreme, in this day and age, to take several decades, plow through a bunch of questionably reported history, and travel to visit one particular person in amsterdam to discover that idea. especially since it is not original. and also, having some space of one's own is not incompatible with whatever else, even family life. or professional life. does she really get paid for writing this up?

[kathy a.]

ok, i have a diagnosis, and it is more or less in sync with amanda's piece: this person is, down deep, very shallow. (to steal from yogi berra.)

[Sir Charles]

Paula and kathy,

I'm with you.

And yes, she was apparently paid for this. By the word seemingly.

[Gustovcarl]

As far as the college experience goes, I started college in 1969, at Michigan State, and often heard seniors and grad students reminisce about the "wild times" in the mid-60s. So the "hook-up" culture has been going on a LONG time.

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

I can't quite decide what I thought about "Freedom." I quite liked it at first, but have had several people critique it in a way that made me question my own judgment. (He is a gorgeous writer though -- and a great observer.)

Gustovcarl,

I think in matters of sexuality there is very little new under the sun.

[Paula B]

Re: Gustovcarl, wild times in the mid-60s.

With (women, at least, having) curfews, sign-out sheets, dress codes, penalties for signing in late, and on-campus housing required for underclassmen at most schools, you had to be really creative to have a wild time in those days. Maybe that creativity also spurred great fish tales.

In spite of excellent grades and a stellar record (more stellar than they realized because I had gone on Freedom Rides and put my life on the line in other civil rights activities without the administration's knowledge), I was almost suspended from the University of Maryland in my freshman year for coming back late to the dorm on the last night of spring semester. My exams were over, I had packed up my room and was all set to move out the next morning. As far as I was concerned, I was done, so I decided to spend a little extra time that night with my boyfriend, leaving behind some memories to hold us over the summer vacation. When I got back to the dorm, that place was locked up, so I knocked on a friend's window and asked her to let me in. She lifted her shade and there was our housemother, who, I swear, was spewing steam from her ears like some character in a crazy cartoon. When it was all over, I had to appeal to the dean of women to be reinstated as a student. We're talking about the crime of coming home at 10:30 p.m. on a weeknight in May, 1962. Yeah, those were wild times. It probably was different for guys.

[Gustovcarl]

Re: Paula B.

I agree, it was different for guys.
Of course, the difference between 1962 & 1969 was astonishing. Also, at MSU, policies varied widely. One section of campus, labelled "Convent Corner", had a group of women's dorms with very restrictive visiting rules: 2-4PM on Sundays, lobby only.
My own dorm, & a number of others, were pretty much wide-open & laissez-faire with only minimal restrictions (again, for women). These could be gotten around. By the early 70s, almost all the dorms were really wide-open.

[kathy a.]

wow, paula.

my college years were 1975-79, and by then co-ed dorms and no curfew were the norm -- pretty much everywhere. but one of my HS teachers attended the same college, class of '72, and she told me about demonstrations that changed the rules, probably '69 or so.

by 1980, when my sister started at cal berkeley, her dorm floor was co-ed by alternating rooms, and had co-ed bathrooms. there were no untoward incidents, the women having announced early and often that they knew where everybody lived, and that there would be serious and personal repercussions for unwelcome shenanigans. self-rule in action.

but let's go back to my parents' generation, mid-1950's. it was my understanding that women regularly evaded the housemothers by sneaking out of windows and such. the men? sheesh, to hear the tales, it was practically required that they go do stupid shit in the middle of the night.

[Sir Charles]

And I think by 1978 when I got to school, these changes had become incredibly institutionalized considering that they had really taken place for less than a decade.

We all came and went as we pleased -- hell, our dorms didn't even lock up at night or have people stationed at desks, which is kind of hard to believe now.

[Paula B]

Yeah, Kathy, I was hoping my housemother would be one of those with a sense of humor, but no. I think dorm culture must have changed abruptly because, by 66/67, I visited my brother at Wesleyan (all male, at the time) and actually spent the night in his dorm. One of his buddies gave up his bed for me. (I should find out whose bed I slept in, might be the son of someone quite famous.)

I think the rules for women at UMCP were the norm for those times, from what I heard from friends at other schools. Again, men probably had much more freedom. The dress cods stuff was the worst. And, Gustave, yes we had the same restrictions for men coming into the dorm: they were allowed only in the lobbies, only at certain times.

Thanks to all this protection, only half my friends were pregnant by sophomore year.

[oddjob]

We all came and went as we pleased -- hell, our dorms didn't even lock up at night or have people stationed at desks, which is kind of hard to believe now.

I can't recall how it was for the women's dorms (which in my particular dorm complex were adjacent to the men's dorms, only one was co-ed by floor), but when I was an undergrad at Penn State ('77-'81) this was exactly how it was in the men's dorms. I forget when Penn State dropped its policy of acting in loco parentis, but I know it was some time in the decade prior to my arrival.

From what I recall hearing the late 60's & early 70's at Penn State was quite the time (given that as big colleges go it's pretty conservative). IIRC in the spring of '68 they cancelled finals and just let eveyrone pass, or something like that. I also remember being told that in '72 there were still demonstrations, including one where a large number of students sat down on one of the main streets in State College immediately adjacent to the campus. I don't know how long they blocked traffic.

By the time I was there the student body was quite a bit different. I can't imagine anything like that would have taken place with the students who were there with me. They were too conservative and too uninvolved in politics generally to do something like that.

[Paula B]

It's too bad it took until whenever it took to treat college students like adults, and dorm rooms like rental housing. The strange thing is, I had absolutely no curfew or restrictions when I lived at home. If anything, my parents were not acting in loco parentis. Go figure.

[oddjob]

If anything, my parents were not acting in loco parentis.

Hence the absurdity of the college doing so.

[nancy]

I simply could not read Bolick's article closely. Tried. Got to the Susan Walsh part and bailed. I agree with what Freddie had to say about the whole mess. She does photograph beautifully doesn't she? I really hate these lamentations posing as some sort of Very Important social indicator. Sets the teeth on edge.

I would be much more interested in reading an article exploring the myriad ways that the current economic climate and job market is affecting how and when men and women get to the 'partnering up' threshold and what decisions they then make. Having to postpone adulthood and its attendant commitments might have made a more timely cover story.

My first 'political action' (irony intended) was taking part in a campus protest in opposition to in loco parentis. Women announced ahead of time that we'd all be breaking curfew on a Monday night. We hung around on the quad a half-hour past curfew, the RA's let us all back in the locked dorms, and we had notes put in our files. Ha. It worked. Eventually. This was not exactly sisterhood in action. Men were part of the protest too, although they were not breaking a curfew. Our aligned lofty goal obviously was being able to party hearty. :)

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

Another aspect of the changed culture that had been fully absorbed in a short time was Roe v. Wade and the right to legalized abortion. I cannot recall anyone who gave birth during my four years at Brandeis.

nancy,

Yeah, the Atlantic really seems to have a tin ear with respect to these kinds of stories -- the laments of the privileged.

I can't believe you had a curfew and that it was imposed strictly on women. Such amazing bullshit. Does someone like Bolick really want to return to this sort of thing?

[kathy a.]

i ran a dorm 1978-9. we did not care what people did if it didn't bother other people, but -- nobody at the desk, no locking of the doors at night??

my college was in a major city, and there was crime in that sector, and there were rapes, and so locking the doors was pretty important. my dorm had 4 buildings and a quite a lot of ground-level entrances. the duty staff member had to check at least 18 doors at night, but many residents thought it was a pain in the ass to carry keys, so the doors were often propped open.

i wasn't in loco parentis, but "loco" is a pretty good description of that year. 3 fires, one set when friends from a fancy-pants other college decided homemade smoke bombs in a dorm room were hilarious. [our fire training came in handy; i arrived on scene in jammies, and kept various other residents from killing the kid who invited these jokers.] 2 residents with serious mental illness. the odd drug incidents, leading at least once to me using my superpowers [master key] to see if someone was alive. and then there was the guitar guy, a mentally ill homeless man that someone brought home from the bus stop, who decided he had gotten "good vibes" from the dorm. so every time he was carted off-campus by our very kind security people, he came back to stay and use people's towels and clothes and eat their food and enjoy the vibes, because people kept leaving the doors open.

i blame it all [almost] on incomplete frontal lobe development in the late teens/early 20's, and also wonder why they thought seniors in college were a good choice for running dorms. it kind of grew me up fast, gave me a lot of lifelong skills in everything from public safety to emergency mental health intervention, but damn.

[Eric Wilde]

I dunno, kathy. It sounds like a good time to me. :) Seriously.

[oddjob]

(FWIW, Penn State is out in the middle of nowhere. Outside of State College, which at the time didn't even qualify as a city for Census Bureau purposes, there's nothing around it for many miles but farms, villages, and small towns. Williamsport is probably the closest city, but it's small and approx. a 45 min. drive at 60mph. There were crime problems, including rape, but the problems were pretty much generated by the students themselves. I don't recall that reported rapes, the ones you read about in the newspaper, happened in the dorms. They were the sort of thing that happened outside on the campus, after dark.)

[oddjob]

It appears the OWS movement is unintentionally stimulating organized labor recruitment activity.

[nancy]

SirC -- the women-only curfew had been useful to the school, I imagine, because in the heydey of the fraternity, the men were running around in various versions of semi-dress and drunkenness annoying the poor townies. by the time I arrived on campus, Greek life had gone out of favor and the men had figured it out -- what good was having no curfew if the women weren't allowed to come out and play?

kathy -- incomplete frontal lobe development. now there's the topic. can't open the morning newspaper without seeing its impacts -- one sad young person injury/accident/arrest after another. males especially. that's one of the reasons the mormon church sends young men on missions. keeps them safe from themselves. mostly these guys would rather not be going door-to-door. i see them dogging it all the time in the supermarket aisles. missionary training makes them get up in the morning, iron their clothes, plan meals, yadda. pretty soon, they're functional. more people would cut the mormons some slack if they knew that. course the church isn't going to make that official either.

[oddjob]

It isn't just subadult human males that disproportionately make these sorts of poor decisions that underestimate risk. The mammoth fossils at this site in South Dakota are pretty much all subadult males, too.

[Paula B]

good point, nancy. And, you were a hero, kathy!

The only people who remember the 50s and 60s as good old days are guys. They didn't have restrictions, they didn't have to worry about date rape or any other type of rape (for the most part), they could go to much better schools than women (with few exceptions), they got more scholarships and were cut more slack for the nutso stuff they did when they were in school. And, it wasn't because anybody knew about delayed frontal lobe development in males. They were just the favored gender. Period. Then, of course there was the job thing.
You have to remember that these factors were still alive and well during the formative years of John McCain, Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnell and even John Boehner, to some extent (born in 1949, so he would have started college around 1967), as well as Harry Reid. We can't make assumptions about the basis for their thinking, especially when it comes to women's issues and equity issues in general.

[low-tech cyclist]

I matriculated in 1972, and by then the college I went to, which four years earlier had been all-male, had coed dorms, with men's and women's rooms on alternating floors.

Speaking of all-male colleges, it wasn't just small New England schools. U-Va was all male until 1970, I believe, and women in Virginia had to settle for Mary Washington College.

[oddjob]

Princeton was all-male until 1969.

[nancy]

oddjob -- that's pretty funny. are you assuming that the mammoths standing safely at the edges in the drawings are the females? the young male mammoths just couldn't resist plunging in. oh no. or the males are out cavorting at the swimmin' hole, while the females are home in the mammoth cave? all the mammoths in the drawings are 'guys being guys.'

i think i'm anthropomorphizing again.

[Paula B]

You're right about Mary Washington, ltc. I applied there. Cornell, Yale, Harvard, Lehigh, Bucknell, Gettysburg, Georgetown, Williams, Penn (I think), Columbia, Dartmouth, lots of small liberal arts schools in Pennsylvania and NYS, were still all male. Even Rutgers! Women went to Douglass College. UMCP, Penn State, UW-Madison, UM-Ann Arbor were among the eastern state universities that fully integrated women into their regular program. (Blacks, of course, were another story, unless they were from Africa.)
Some days it's hard to believe life was like this in my lifetime. I mean, I've got some miles on me, but I'm not 150 years old.
I was lucky to be raised in a family where all women went to college, even graduate school, and I was encouraged to do anything I wanted to do.

[oddjob]

oddjob -- that's pretty funny

I forget where I read about this before, but I think it was an Earthwatch publication (a seriously cool non-profit if you're of a scientific bent - when I have the $$$ I'm going). The thinking was that those most likely to reach out too far for succulent food (& so fall into a trap with no exit - once they went in they couldn't come out again) were those most likely to take too big a risk.

Subadult males.

[oddjob]

It's not mentioned at the link, but pretty much all the skeletons they find at this site are subadult males. Either this was a place where only males went or if there were females nearby they didn't act in ways that would cause them to fall in.

[oddjob]

They also don't find older males.

[oddjob]

At Rutgers Douglass College still exists. Back in 2007 the administration proposed folding it completely into the rest of its liberal arts division, but there was a lot of resistance to that. Rutgers is fully co-ed, but Douglass houses a women's emphasis approach to a university education.

[nancy]

SirC -- you wrote: A good time was had by many. And strangely enough, many of us also got married later on.

I think that statement describes the fundamental problem that the right has with much of the country right now. It can't entertain the notion that one might order one's life in such a way, yet still manage to become quite the responsible and productive citizen. In their fevered minds, one cancels out the other, or so they pretend.

I find this particularly troubling with the assault on women's reproductive choice. More than one woman I know found herself in need of a pregnancy termination, for the most personal of reasons, only later to enter into motherhood in great joy. They became mothers later on. One wonders how, if more women could/would speak truth about their own decisions, the entire straw woman vilification might be exposed for what it is. For the most part, the people willing to yank Planned Parenthood funding care nothing about the unborn in say, Burundi. Nor even Ciudad Juarez. They think in terms of American white babies ['just like me'].

[kathy a.]

nancy nails it. (although, i think you're generous -- they like white american fetuses right up until they are born and start needing that stuff one needs to live and thrive: food, health care, housing, education, safety.)

one of my sibs needed an abortion, and friends have also, and they were good citizens who went on to be great parents; or who already were parents, but not in a position to provide for more. i could have been at either end of the spectrum, but for a birth control failure that fortunately didn't happen. (to me; happens all the time, though.) if i had ended up with pregnancy complications that risked my life, i would have gotten an abortion then, too. i don't take abortion lightly; it is more like, i take my job as a parent seriously, and i think that is true for most women. they might differ in their choices, but there is no reason behind removing choices from those most affected.

[nancy]

kathy -- i don't mean to be generous. i do think an irrational disrespect for the judgement of women is inarguable here. however, i also think that if every unplanned pregnancy were mandated to proceed to birth, as these people proclaim should happen, and all of the 'fathering' were required to 'marry in' or ' plan to pay support/be involved for the lifetime of the child', this nonsense would stop.

[Paula B]

Advise your kids to stay out of Mississippi (for so many reasons!): http://on.msnbc.com/qJttix

[Paula B]

nancy---It seems to me, if states want to criminalize women for wanting to end a pregnancy, they ought to go after impregnators, as well. After a man has fathered a set number of children, make it difficult for him to do it again. Ever.

Criminalize or strictly regulate all porn, Viagra, sex toys, suggestive song lyrics, R-rated films, Playboy channels, prostitution or anything that might promote an unwanted pregnancy.

If all pregnancies are protected and required to continue to delivery by state law -- as some are proposing in Mississippi -- shouldn't the state pick up a large part of the cost of having, feeding and raising that child?

How many state-run orphanages (for those whose moms die in childbirth) or institutions for severely (congenitally) disabled children are there in the US these days? Probably next to none. We'd need to build and staff some big ones.

Then, we'd need many more schools, hospitals, playgrounds, recreation centers, universities. I'm sure the Mississippi taxpayers will gladly pay.

Right? Right?

To me, making all abortions illegal is just as nuts as what I propose above.

[kathy a.]

ack, paula. the life at fertilization thing is so incredibly intrusive, horrible, and stupid. a lot of fertilizatons just don't implant, and many more end in miscarriage -- often before anyone recognizes a pregnancy. are they going to do fertility checks on everyone, every month? it's obviously an effort to go after contraception, which is hideous. if passed, it can easily be used to target individuals at a law enforcement officer's discretion.

the article only mentions roe v. wade, but griswold v. CT (1965) was decided earlier and is more on point -- it ruled that a CT law outlawing contraceptives violated the constitution, and this case first discussed the right of personal privacy.

i would hope that somebody is lining up a lawsuit to litigate the constitutionality of such a law, should it pass.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I am always amused -- although not at all surprised -- by the fact that the slightly decadent lefties with whom I went to college are all pretty staid grown ups who are professionally successful and the most serious of parents. I've written about this phenomenon before back when I did a series of post on the book Red Families verus Blue Families -- I don't remember if you were hanging out here back then. (I actually now have no idea when that was -- getting old is hell.)

And abortion was a saving grace for many people I knew who were not then ready for parenthood, but who later joined the ranks.

kathy,

Again, as for the rapidity of cultural change that occurred in the 60s and 70s, we went from Griswold in 1965 to the point where cut rate contraceptives were provided at Brandeis when I went there and there was a student run service that went around to every dorm and tried to educate everyone on choices and methods. That's why I abandoned the Catholics and proclaimed these my people.

[nancy]

wow. this thread sure did wander all over the map in 24 hours, dinnit?

final thought. i have a kind, thoughtful and responsible son. he has had several girlfriends. birth control can fail. end of story.

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I like the threads to wander.

I too have such a son -- I hope he's as careful as possible.

[nancy]

Sir C -- that's the point. careful isn't foolproof. unfortunately. and the moralizers don't care. they want punitive measures, but mostly dropped on the the steps of sexually active women, not sexually active men.

yes -- i thought the wandering was good stuff. always is. :)

thanks.

[low-tech cyclist]

My son's just 4, but there will come a time - all too early, I expect - when he gets as much sex as he's willing to handle.

I know I'm going to have some pretty early conversations with him about sexual responsibility, but as nancy says, careful (and responsible) isn't foolproof.

[Joe S]

Okay, I was able to get through 75% of the Bolick piece- it was just too insipid to go through it all. I have three basic observations:
(1) Bolick really seemed to cut and paste a bad Hanna Rosin piece (on the End of Men which she's parleyed into a career somehow), a bad Caitlin Flannagan piece (they're basically all the same), and a bad Lori Gottlieb piece. The Atlantic seems to have found somebody who can put together all of their bad theses about feminism in one giant article.
(2) These pieces are for women in the same way Thomas Friedman pieces are for parents who worry about their kids. It plays upon the anxiety of women who have basically made it financially,but have anxiety about their relationships or lack thereof.
(3) These pieces seem to have no clue that lots of women didn't get married in years past, but now, single women have some autonomy and dignity in a way they didn't before. My grandmother's family had eight kids, two of the girls never got married (one became a nun, the other had to raise my grandmother and her siblings after my great grandparents died). Growing up in a working class partially agricultural community, there were lots of older women (and men) living together who had never been married or who were taking care of parents. This seems like a manufactured crisis in that there always seems like there's a percentage of the population which isn't cut out for long term romantic relationships-- except now those people have more choices on how to make their lives fulfilling.

[jeanne marie]

Nothing is more attractive than someone who feels entitled to a "successful" marriage.

[oddjob]

It appears the OWS movement is unintentionally stimulating organized labor recruitment activity.

(A restatement of a previous bit of worthy news.)

[oddjob]

American Prospect editor-at-large (& WaPo columnist) Harold Meyerson notes that for the first time in decades the damn hippies (of OWS) and big labor are singing in harmony.

Hat tip, The Plum Line.

[oddjob]

Two misnamed "moderate" Democrats.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

That's an excellent distillation on the Atlantic's peculiar take on feminism. Thanks. (I think -- I find each of those writers more annoying than the next.)

oddjob,

I did want to comment on this strange attempt by the right to replay the Sixties as though the culture has been static since then. As someone who actually spends a whole lot of time with "hardhats" -- in fact I am sitting in such a meeting as we speak -- I can assure you that there is a lot more long hair and tatoos in the building trades than one would find in say the lefty blogosphere. Moreover, the kind of reflexive militarism that prevailed in such groups during much of the cold war is just not there these days.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

Thanks for the Meyerson link. He's terrific.

I did not realize he was a Michael Harrington disciple. Harrington probably had more influence on me than just about anyone I can think of.

[oddjob]

the Sixties as though the culture has been static since then

Just like they have been..... ;)

[oddjob]

It doesn't take much exposure to the right before you realize that for an awful lot of them it's still 1978, "the 60's" just recently happened, and Jimmy Carter is still the president.

[oddjob]

Interesting take on OWS. I think he's probably largely correct.

Hat tip, Sully.

[oddjob]

Top CIA agent working for NYPD draws scrutiny, few answers

[kathy a.]

an interesting piece in slate discusses the fact that most women who have abortions are already mothers. the most common rationale is protecting the children they already have. kind of defies the stereotype of selfish reckless slutty baby-haters, doesn't it?

~~~~~
i love jeanne marie's comment!

[kathy a.]

good links on OWS, oddjob.

the whole thing is so interesting. it is quite unlike political protests of the '60's, where Vietnam was a big focus, soviets and nuclear war were huge worries, and things were gummed up with the fear of global communism.

the enormous economic disparities, the financial crisis that sprung from both deregulation and the idea that profit is all, the huge problem with joblessness despite jobs needing to be done, citizen's united unleashing big money to squelch voices in the political arena, the right's sudden interest in cutting everything right now to pay debts it ran up in the rogue years, the right's ongoing interest in protecting the wealthy against parting with a dime (despite them getting that way on the sweat and collective contributions of others) -- that's a real set of problems, and it really affects the vast majority of us. not just the estimated 5-10 remaining genuine hippies.

demonstrations like OWS are not the forum for getting legislation passed. but damn, we are in a corner because a passel of our representatives will do all in their power to keep legislation from passing, no matter how much good it would do. pressure is needed, a sense of the many coming together is needed, and this is turning out to be a rather pleasing development.

[Sir Charles]

kathy,

I really wish that people were willing to be more publicly frank about abortion. I believe that there are approximately 40 million women who have had abortions in the U.S. I think it would be so powerful if there was an acknowledgement by women that they have, for a variety of life circumstances, exercise this right. (I don't blame them for not doing so given the craziness of rhetoric on this issue, but I regret that that is the case.)

Jeanne Marie's comment was splendid.

[nancy]

Here's Jon Chait's pictorial tour of hippies as depicted for a string of covers of the Weekly Standard.

I'd say 1978 is giving them too much credit, oddjob. I think they are stalled ten years earlier and the kids have just left the streets all messy around Grant Park. Those dirty hippies -- one would think they'd be tired of the jab by now.

[kathy a.]

SC, i agree, and that's one reason i was really interested in a local article last week about a woman from an old and well-known SF family willing to talk about her illegal abortion, back in the day.

but i also think it is an intensely private decision -- both the decision to have an abortion, and the decision to disclose -- and that privacy is absolutely important to protect.

personally, i do not want my kids or my work to be jeopardized by some of my experiences, or my personal views on certain matters. and so, i exercise caution in who i tell about some things, and how. i can only imagine that caution weighs on women who have had abortions, and do not want the entire world to judge them solely on that.

one of mine who had an abortion -- this happened in a different life and near the end of a doomed relationship. she is well known now in certain work circles; has been in a devoted relationship for ~ 20 years. she is an uber-parent, too, doing a lot of volunteering for this and that. and, i do not think she has told her son, although i'm positive she has talked about the issue more generally. i can't judge her for declining to make the details open to the public, any more than i judged her for knowing at the time that she was not ready to parent.

[oddjob]

Those of you interested in thinking about the topic of abortion may want to read these links. Before I read them I didn't have strong feelings on the matter one way or the other (because while I unavoidably recognized the controversy I largely preferred to avoid it, even though I have at least one friend and at least one relative who have had abortions). After I read them I realized why the government has no business telling people they can't get abortions.

The testimonials are among the best reading I've ever done on any blog. They are eloquent, very moving, and very blunt about the life circumstances in which the women (partnered and not) found themselves. You can't read this stuff and not be moved.

[kathy a.]

thanks again, oddjob.

i think that women are more likely to have conversations amongst themselves about pregnancy, complications, childbirth, and all the difficulties associated therewith -- including these most personal and difficult choices.

childbearing is not always easy-peasy. my aunt's first had a birth accident. a friend's fetus died, and she had to deliver a dead baby at 8 months. someone in my lamaze class died of an amniotic fluid embolism; her baby was extremely premature but lived. some friends chose to deliver babiess they knew would be seriously and permanently disabled, and others chose the opposite. one blogger had a late-term abortion when one fetus died and the other was nearly certainly doomed, and her own life was in danger. my son's kindergarten teacher, diagnosed with cervical cancer, had to shop for another doctor who did not automatically believe a full hysterectomy was required; she wanted a child of her own, and later had one. oh, the heartbreaking stories of older women -- one woman of the dust bowl was pregnant 25 times, delivering 12 live children [none with medical care], and there was never enough food -- another who desperately tried to self-abort since she had no way to care for the ones she had, and she nearly died -- another who had a diaphragm for birth control, but her husband cut it up. there are endless stories of women who had birth control failures, and could not then raise a child the way they wanted. women stuff.

[not all these stories have to do with abortion; but part of what affects those humans who can bear children is what can go wrong.]

obviously, i'm very glad that men join that conversation in roles other than dictating what is to be done. there have long been male supporters of choice -- one friend's dad was a doctor who began and sustained a planned parenthood clinic in a very poor part of texas, in the 1960's -- but a lot of the public/political conversation is not about the real and very personal nitty gritty that actual people face.

[nancy]

I remember when Sullivan published the series of personal stories, linked above. They are painful and eloquent, which is partly why, in some ways, they beg the question as to why more women aren't willing to be publicly frank about abortion.

Many stories are simply understandable and important only to the woman herself, and go something like this. 'No, not now, not ready, my life cannot absorb this event at this time. I'm (choose one or any) in school, alone, impoverished, not in a relationship that can last under even ideal circumstances, took precautions that failed, can't afford another child, am already on the verge of emotional breakdown.' The unspoken response to those less remarkable stories easily can move to blame and judgment. As in, 'well, if that's the case, what were you doing having sex?'

When she was younger, one of my friends was the most sexually active woman I ever knew. I wouldn't begin to guess the number of partners she had, but I do know of at least three abortions by the time she was 30. Her motto -- I can sleep around just as happily as the next man. Two children later and now well into her 50's, her husband was blustering on and on at a party about the 'sanctity of life'. He knew nothing about her earlier decisions. I'm sure her attitude was that her past belonged to her, and she'd not be justifying it to anyone.

The women in the movie 'Vera Drake' tell the more typical stories. All different and highly personal.

[kathy a.]

nancy -- it turns out i can be judgmental. it is hard to understand someone like your active friend settling for a pro-life blowhard.

[nancy]

kathy -- yes, well. he's now mr. ex-husband. :) she's happily single and has had her name thrown around to run for congress.

[nancy]

kathy -- they married when she had a 7 yr. old from marriage number one -- hubby one had been cheating while she was pregnant. bounce. blowhard, libertarian lawyer, bi-polar, city council member, and impossible person, arrived to be a terrific dad to the 7 yr. old, as well as to the daughter they had together. he also rescued shelter animals and did tons of pro bono work. pro-life? he'd say anything in a gathering to be provocative.

aren't human beings fascinating?

[Paula B]

nancy---was she a mole?

we had a situation in our family where we almost lost a first-time mom to a terrible pregnancy. I can't swear to it, but I think she was pressured subtly or not so subtly by her family to not opt for an abortion, while she had many of the problems that often drive women to abort. Instead, the pregnancy took a terrible toll on her life, her husband's and the baby's, who was born @ under 2 pounds and spent five months in a NICU. She was in the hospital for months also, before and after, and her husband had to take off work for months, because every day had the potential to be their last. The total bill was somewhere in the millions. I doubt that she'll ever do it again, even if it's possible. Meanwhile, we still don't know what this child faces, but he seems to be ok at 2 years. who knows?
If it had been me, I think I would have chosen an abortion, and tried again later. But, I don't know. It wasn't me, and, when I was pregnant, I didn't have to worry that I would disappoint or anger the most important people in my life if I chose to live my life over that of a fetus that nature didn't prepare properly for living.
If I had had a state telling me what to do, even if it could cost me my life, I'm not sure if I could have handled it.

[kathy a.]

uck, nancy. i did not have a very active romantic life in youth, but have always felt very fortunate that i got dumped by one of those people who will say anything in a crowd, just to get attention. it might have taken me a while to dump him on grounds of being an asshole.

paula, such a hard and complicated story. that baby was born so very small, and so much trauma all around. my youngest sib was a preemie -- 2.5 lbs. in 1965, when such tiny ones usually died. she didn't; she was what they called a fighter. my mom did not admit the pregnancy until just 3 months before this sister was born, and in no way was she ready for a 4th child who needed extra care. mom was only 28. of the 4 kids, this was the third birth control failure, according to her account. mom kind of went off the rails then -- not in a really public way, but she was not equipped, and things were harsh over the later years. ("harsh" is shorthand for all the horrible crap that i'd rather not recount right now.)

all that is why i really, really believe in effective sex ed and birth control, health care for all, and the ability to choose abortion if another child is not what one can handle.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Ironically, just earlier this evening -- not having checked in on COG all day -- I was wondering if I dared make the suggestion that I believe at least three women who have had abortions -- preferably legal ones, I don't want this to go on the 'coathanger' battles -- should run for Congress in strongly pro-life districts (ones that we would almost certainly lose anyway) just to confront the pro-life voters with a human face on the topic rather than an abstraction.

In the same way I'd like to see three openly gay (three is not an exact number, say 'some') candidates run in districts of noted homophobes like Louis Gohmert. (Dare i even think of Muslim candidates in some districts, even either King's?)

Forcing the debate and 'taking it to' the bigots is a tactic we don't do often enpugh -- and this year we really should use it. It might not make a difference this election -- but the future???

[Paula B]

prup, nice idea all around but maybe not in such contentious times. Perhaps 2016 will be less fractious.
On the other hand, red herrings might get lost, or even negate each other, in a large field of candidates. Is that what you're thinking, and why you want three of each?

kathy, as you say, there are so many reasons why a woman chooses to have or not have an abortion, and often, those choices are neither logical nor predictable. We don't force people to have or not have children in the larger sense, so why do we think we have a right to tell them what to do at the moment when they must make an irrevocable decision?

One thing I have to look up is whether or not lifetime caps on health insurance are done away with in ACA. Does anyone know? If caps are still in effect, very vulnerable preemies might start life over their limit. Then what happens? And what about the mom's health insurance if a bad pregnancy runs her over her cap? That's certainly possible in a horrific pregnancy with placental abruption or other life-threatening complications. Not that you can put a dollar value on life. That shouldn't be part of the abortion discussion, but it's something to think about if states, like Mississippi, are serious about making abortions illegal. They better be prepared for taking care of the consequences.

[Paula B]

on a totally different topic, I just read on msnbc.com that Cain leads in SC. Let's let that state secede, if it wants to.

[Sir Charles]

Paula,

Lifetime and annual caps are done away with in ACA.

The annual limits are being phased out, but in 2012 are already raised to $1.25 million. I am actually dealing with this in a number of my smaller union health plans that have much lower annual caps.

It is a very good thing for consumers, but a bit of a worry for small self-insured plans like I work with.

Annual caps will be done away with altogether by January 1, 2014. As will pre-existing condition clauses for adults.

Lifetime caps have now been eliminated.

I know people on the left have taken to disparaging ACA, but these are big things.

It really saddens me that people on the left do not see how big some of these changes are.

Mississippi is one of those states that has almost succeeded in de fact outlawing abortion. I think it is very hard to find providers there.

[oddjob]

If it had been me, I think I would have chosen an abortion, and tried again later. But, I don't know. It wasn't me, and, when I was pregnant, I didn't have to worry that I would disappoint or anger the most important people in my life if I chose to live my life over that of a fetus that nature didn't prepare properly for living.

Minus the possibility of ever becoming pregnant myself, this was the realization I came to after reading the testimonials Sully posted back in 2009. This is why the state has no business banning abortion. If it had been me in any of those circumstances I have no idea what sort of choice I would make, but I know damn well I would want to decide that for myself (or with relevant other people such as a spouse). There's no way on earth I would ever think it right for the state to be telling me what to do with a cudgel as blunt as some broad brush ban on a procedure that might well save my life or my sanity.

[oddjob]

One thing I have to look up is whether or not lifetime caps on health insurance are done away with in ACA. Does anyone know?

I'm not certain, but I think ACA bans lifetime caps.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

[I think this comment was eaten, if it is repeated, kill off this one.]
"prup, nice idea all around but maybe not in such contentious times. Perhaps 2016 will be less fractious."

Sorry, Paula, but it is thinking like this that has made these times so contentious. We have backed away from the serious arguments both against forced pregnancy and for gay rights -- and in both cases have ceded the 'moral high ground' to our opponents. And it is because they continue to hold that ground -- and the benefit of large families and home-schooling -- that has kept the Religious Right even alive through the scandals, the absurdities, and the changes in mores.

And, btw, it is because we refused to fight on these grounds that Roe -- and very likely Lawrence and even Griswold as well -- will probably cease to exist as precedent in their current form within the next five years -- even in Obama is re-elected. Because, given the Senate seats coming up over the 2012 and 2014 elections, there is no way we can regain 60 votes. There are no pro-choice Republicans left except maybe Snowe and Brown (and we'll win Brown's seat in this scenario, and maybe Snowe's) and they are canceled by Casey and Leiberman -- at least -- on our side. The Republicans can simply announce -- and follow through -- on a declaration that they will filibuster any appointee that does not declare that Roe, Lawrence and Griswold were wrongly decided, and there is nothing that can be done about it unless we get rid of the filibuster -- and again, we are unlikely to have a majority strong enough to do that either.

This is why I've been screaming and moaning about how stupid we were in 2010 and waiting for some evidence -- which I have yet to see -- that we learned from our mistakes and were going back to a Dean-style full attack on every seat in both houses. It is why I worry about the overconfidence I see that Obama is "sure to win" against opponents so removed from the mainstream -- the way Coakley and Weprin were, the way New Hampshire would never elect a pregnancy forcer to the Senate.

I want to make separate posts on the specific errors in our approaches to all three areas -- pregnancy focing, homophobia, and Church-State separation -- that have given the religious/magical/mystical mindset the upper hand -- unnecessarily. (And maybe some day soon I will have time to explain why it is the same mindset that created the dittoheads, the tea party, the Palin phenomenon, etc.)

Right now, I'll simply say that if we don't start changing the tone, terms, and direction of the debate, we'll continue to face a legislature more and more ready to reverse our gains -- even as the populace in general moves in our direction in some of these areas. (What the hell good is it to have a majority supporting gay marruiage, if we don't make opposition to gay marriage a major issue for people to vote on, The same with abortion. (Ironically, we've succeeded in the 'ffree market' quite well, because corporations have been unwilling to insult a large customer base -- but we've done nothing to activate the same base to vote on these issues.

We've got to get away from the abstractions -- see my next couple of comments -- and start putting real, human faces on the issues. Because we've lost on the abstractions, they've made us look weak and not even convinced of our own positions. That's what we have to change -- and is why the 'some' examples should actually happen this election.

[kathy a.]

prup -- i think this group is in agreement that knowing some of the stories of actual women informs the issue, and helps take it out of the realm of abstraction.

but you are saying that a number of women should set themselves up to be publicly attacked and personally villified, about the most personal decision they ever made.

the privacy we value is not just in making that decision, but in choosing whether or not to talk about that decision.

the attacks and villification are not abstractions. the rabidly anti-abortion people have, for quite a long time, endeavored to shame and frighten women away from clinics where abortions are performed. they think nothing of releasing personal information about their opponents -- home addresses, workplace information, etc. -- and encouraging the group to go after them there. they are armed with giant bloody fetus photos, megaphones, fire and brimstone. among them are those who have bombed clinics, killed abortion providers at home and at church.

in short, what you propose as a political strategy would in fact be a brutal and potentially dangerous act of self-sacrifice.

[Paula B]

Thanks, kathy. I think you're right, although I wish the situation were otherwise. Until the fires of hate cool down in this country, few rational people are going to set themselves up for sacrifice for any cause. And, I say that as someone who has faced angry, hateful people over something I believed in.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Let's start with pregnancy-forcing -- and the skies would fall if any Democratic candidate challenged his opponent using that term and concept. "How dare you claim that the government has the right to force women like these in the audience to bear a child at whatever cost to her, to her future, to the rest of her family and their future?" Has any Democratic candidate ever asked that question?

Instead we've even let the forcers swallow the term 'pro-life' and digest it -- instead of hittiong them so hard in the belly that they vomited it back up. It isn't just that so many of them are, in fact, 'pro-death,' accepting the deaths of the uninsured, the criminal, the poor -- and in some cases the person who touches the electrified fence they want on our borders.

No, our position is just as 'pro-life' as theirs, or more so. We are interested in and fighting for many lives, and for the quality of life people have a right to choose over an unformed lump of cells. We care about 'the life of the mother' but not just in the medical sense we always use it. The life she chooses to live, the future she chooses to make for herself, the life she may have with her husband and already born children that she does not want diluted. (And while America is far too pleasure-averse to make this point, the chance to choose -- as men always have been able to except for 'shotgun weddings -- how long they can spend in a state of unattached freedom and enjoyment before they choose to accept the desireable shackles of responsibility.)

There is, btw, no conflict betweem this and the argument that 'abortion should be safe, legal, and rare' -- that we can hope most women would make the choice to have the child -- but only if that position implies a firm committment both to an intelligent sex education that includes both full instruction on contraception but also on sexual practices that cannot cause pregnancies but can cause orgasms, but also to a higher level of support for those women -- married or not -- who do make such a choice.

We've allowed them to claim the 'pro-life' title, and that, by itself costs us too much 'moral high ground.' We forget that this is an uncomfortable subject for many people to think through in all its ramifications -- particularly people who are religious, but mildly so. They'd rather just 'pick a slogan' and march under that nbanner -- and 'life' sounds better -- and more moral -- than 'choice.'

But then we've chosen -- whenever we can't duck the subject entirely like Paul Hodes did (how did that work, Non-Senator Hodes) -- to fight on the grounds of 'rape, incest, and the life of the mother.'

Let's translate that to 'Okay, okay, we won't fight you about the immorality of abortion in general, we are saying that, in these particular emergencies, it still may be an acceptable one.' (Maybe we don't mean to say that, but what counts is how something is heard.)

Again, the loss of the moral high ground -- and we don't even use these 'exceptions' well.

[I'll break here, and hopefully get back very soon after cat feeding -- today maybe before my regular nap.]

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

No I won't -- it took 5 tries to get that posted. But I have to ask Paula -- whose reputation and experience silences my 'rooting from the sidelines' for those times -- ifg you really think the climate of hate today is worse than then. Or is the difference the fact that we had the moral high ground and the active support of so many -- while today no one cares enough to fight on our side?

[Paula B]

I don't think the hate is deeper, but the numbers of those who hate are larger and the haters are more widespread. It's no longer conveniently located in an area you can avoid, if necessary. And, it's much easier to attack someone anonymously today, thanks to technology. We can organize quicker, but so can the crazies. Also, there are far more guns available (more than people, in the US), and we have come to tolerate violence in everything, from commercials to sports and comedies. Even those who care to fight on our side might be scared off. As for the moral high ground, you and I might think we have it, but there are entire theological seminaries, universities, law schools (Liberty) as well as churches, judges and highly-paid media pundits who say we don't. Then, there are the truly crazy who hunt down doctors who perform legal abortions, shoot up shoppers on an Arizona Saturday or attempt to blow up commercial airliners for religious reasons. As I said before, it's different now. It's very hard to keep track of where our side ends, and the other side begins. That wasn't always the case.
I'm not saying you don't have a point about how we got this way, I'm just saying you won't find many takers willing to take on the risks, because they're monumental, not only for individuals who might want to participate, but for their loved ones. We're all held hostage by the crazies, and this is a very different battlefield. I guess it's comparable to the way war has evolved from obvious battle lines to street warfare, or even drones. Not a pretty picture. I don't envy our kids and grandkids.

[kathy a.]

prup, i do not agree that we have "ceded the moral high ground" on any of the issues you mention. we are winning on gay rights. the privacy cases have held on despite fierce and longtime efforts from those who want "government small enough to fit in a womb." while there is too much "god bless america" for my taste, it is also true that everybody can think of a religious tradition that they would not want rammed down their personal throats.

we did not "allow" the anti-abortion forces to claim themselves as "pro-life." that is how they choose to advertise themselves. the history of setting the record straight is as long as the history of that banner.

there may well be pro-choice people who only support choice in limited circumstances. but i think that examples like rape, incest, health of the mother emerged because they are reasons for abortion that are compelling, even to those whose main problem is that they don't want all these sluts sleeping around and then complaining about the consequences.

those who speak of abortion as akin to "murder" choose to focus on late-term abortions, because that kinda looks a lot more like killing a viable human being than the overwhelmingly more usual early-term abortions -- which are quite safe, and involve small blobs of tissue that have a fair chance of never making it anyway, miscarriages being so common in nature. late-term abortions are extremely rare, and virtually always performed because either the fetus is badly damaged and cannot survive, or the life of the mother is in jeopardy, or both.

i'm a pretty brave person in certain respects, and like paula, i've faced angry people over issues. but i also take precautions to protect myself and my family from the lunatics.

but there is safety in numbers, which is why we personally should all do what we can to keep telling the truth. one of my favorite gifts from a colleague and mentor involved meerkats, who "stand together to protect the group."

[oddjob]

Blue collar whites are supporting OWS.

Despite competition for jobs being larger than it's ever been since the Great Depression, GOP debate audience cheers the idea that the jobless merely need look in the mirror if they want to find the problem.

[nancy]

One last thing before this interesting thread runs out -- feminists in the 70's made a huge error, I believe, when they casually dismissed women who chose to leave/stay out of the workplace and raise children. And they did --the phrase 'wife and mother' came with a curled lip. I thought that then, and I think it even more now, because it caused a needless dismissal by 'leadership' feminists of many, many women who were in need of affirmation and who might be standing in solidarity now.

I remember well the day I was no longer 'suited up', going to the market at 6 pm in my now 'mom duds', baby in car carrier, and suddenly, I'd become invisible. This was after many years in the mostly non-profit workplace salt mines. The women who could 'do it all' were more than happy to mow me down in the checkout lines. After all, they were 'doing it all.' Bleh. Oh well. Back to Anthropology 101.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that the 'mommy wars' were mostly avoidable.

[Paula B]

Well put, nancy. I certainly curled my lip, but as a single mom, what I really wanted was to NOT HAVE TO do it all. For me and many other women, there was no choice. In spite of what we said, you might like to know we didn't really do it all---we skimped, big time, closing our eyes to our health, our kids' needs and our homes, which we never had time for. Some of us didn't make it. And, that was for $0.59 on the $1.00. Hardly worth it, in many ways.
I'm glad to see women trying new paths and letting themselves off the hook more than they used to.

[Crissa]

Personally, I sank in university.

But even being how poorly I was equipped to deal with that many strangers... I remember my computer came shipped with a broken 3.5" drive and there was little to no networking I could access meant any work I did on it was trapped. Take that plus I tend to get RSI when taking notes, the fact that most places allow computers into classes would mean my notes would've been alot less painful. Add that to the fact that alarms are in almost everything, and I wouldn't have unintentionally slept through as many classes as I did.

...I Aced the classes I intentionally slept through.

Of course, my university didn't have a pick-up or any sort of 'scene': It was 85% male, and a female post-graduate was lamenting that she never even got asked out on a date the students were so terminally geeky/shy or 24hr busy with flight school in the years she attended.

[Crissa]

PPS, why do I always hear lamenting that feminists left out X or Y when these groups are often mutually exclusive? Feminists left out CEOs, because they already had achieved, or abused them for being not granola super-mom enough, or left our women who chose not to have kids; or they ignored women of color because none of them were women of color, or they didn't manage to do the right buttons or whatnot to enter some community or other; or they didn't...

Obviously feminism failed to lift all boats, but to blame it as though it wasn't trying? What does that give you? What does being invisible as a busy mom have to do with feminism missing you? Wouldn't it be more a problem with those that are ignoring you in the first place?

Didn't feminism get us not just aiming for equal wage but equal treatment in family leave and equal treatment in promotions? Isn't it now illegal to fire a woman (or a man) for having children in the US? Are you saying they didn't try? I don't get the point at all.

[Crissa]

The ACA bans lifetime caps, this went into effect a few weeks ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Effective_September_23.2C_2010

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/ for source.

[nancy]

Paula -- that's why i put 'do it all' in quotes. just like i'd put 'power suit' in quotes. i think all those expressions made good copy for newsweek cover articles, but bore no resemblance to women's day-to-day experiences. 'doing it all' was supposed to be not only breezily possible, but 'self-actualizing', remember? :-))

Crissa -- my comment was meant to allude to the discussion earlier in the thread about women speaking frankly about abortion. the point i meant to make was that in the early days of second-wave feminism, and mostly before movement leaders began to take the step into parenthood, there was an unproductive attitude that prevailed about stay-at-home motherhood. voices we need to hear now were unnecessarily muted or lost in speaking out about women's reproductive rights. it was a loss of solidarity that lead, perhaps, to less outspokenness today than might otherwise have been expected about the relentless need of the right to assault and overturn roe. sorry if i was unclear.

'lifting all boats'? not sure where you're going with that.

[Paula B]

I self-actualized myself right into some serious health conditions and more. But, I'm still here, standing. And so are you! That's the only solidarity we need. Experience counts.