Posts from — April 2011

I’m having a difficult time starting this post.  I sort of wish I had kept all of the earlier beginnings rather than erasing them.  I’m also trying to remember to not write things such as “flogging a dead horse” because we’re talking about PETA.  I realize that jokes like that are quickly turning me into the least popular person on the Internet.

And I do love animals.  Remember that whole vegetarian thing?

So last thoughts since I can tell from some of the comments on that last post as well as other people’s blog posts that they wrote as a response that I touched a nerve and I’m going to be speaking about this topic this week (more on that in a moment).  So I’m going to start off this post with a story about ice skater Johnny Weir of feathery costume and clockwise jumping fame.

Back in January, Johnny Weir was in People magazine (I read only the most erudite texts) speaking about coming out in his new memoir.  It was the first time Weir formally came out and stated that he was gay in the media.  Prior to this point, he had refused to answer questions about his sexuality, pointing out that it had nothing to do with his performance on the ice.

He had been pressured greatly by gay publications and websites to come out, presumably because of the good that could come from having the bridged attention between his accomplishments on the ice and the communities to which he belongs.  It would have been a chance for gay teens to have him as a role model.  For the general American public to say, “hey, we used to think crap-ass things about gay people, but this Weir boy rocks so hard that we’ve rethought all of our small-minded ideas.”

At least, that’s always the hope.

Weir writes,

All the gay websites couldn’t figure out why I was such a jerk that I wouldn’t talk about it.  A lot of the gays got downright angry about my silence.  But pressure is the last thing that would make me want to “join” a community … The massive backlash against me in the gay media and community only made me dig my “closeted” heels in further.

It made me think about all the times we wish a celebrity would come out and admit that they used donor eggs or IVF.  How much it would help our community if the general public could see a well-loved, successful figure as part of our community.  Because we need people to put it out there, to talk about infertility in a public forum.  We need people to talk about it on the personal level and we need people to talk about it on the media level if we want to generate understanding and evoke change.  And damn it, nothing spreads word like a celebrity endorsement.

And yet, what about the needs of the individual?  The one who doesn’t want to be told that they’re morally obligated to join the community just because they happen to fit the definition of the community?

I think that balancing the needs of individuals with the community as a whole was a huge part of the PETA campaign.  On one hand, there were people who needed to voice their anger at PETA.  It was what was best for them for their own emotional health, and I think to deny that need for the sake of the community as a whole would be like cutting of your nose to spite your face.  I think first and foremost, individuals need to have peace of heart because communities are made up of individuals.  In that regard, I feel that the individual is more important than the community as a whole.  It’s sort of in the vein of the put-on-your-own-oxygen-mask-before-assisting-others in airplane emergency situations.

(At the same time, we all know that for a community to work, we need to make sacrifices.  We need to forgo our individual needs for the greater good.  But right now, we’re talking about the individual.  Just pointing out that a counterbalance exists.)

There were also people who didn’t want to speak out, and they should never be berated or feel like they let the community down because they needed to not engage in the PETA campaign.  I think when people mindfully don’t engage, it’s not apathy.  It’s a conscious choice that is just as passionate as activism.

So where does that leave us?  How do we balance our individual needs — what we feel in our gut is the right thing to do — with what I discussed in the last post — what is best for the community as a whole?  Since many times, they are in direct opposition to one another.

A little while back, there was a Huffington Post article that I wrote about and I’m being taped this week for an Internet radio show about it that will air during NIAW.  The other two people on the show are Barbara Collura from Resolve and the author, Dina Roth Port.

I think the guest breakdown is interesting.  We were all obviously chosen to speak because we all had something to do with the article.  Port wrote it, Collura was quoted in it, and I addressed it.  But we also represent this struggle between the individual and the whole.  I am obviously presenting my individual point-of-view.  I don’t speak for this community…

…wait, I’m going to actually separate this out and say it again here because I’ve been told by others in the past that I do: I don’t speak for this community.  Your thoughts may align with mine, and then it clearly makes sense for you to stand beside me with those thoughts (you may disagree with me at other times).  But I present my own personal world-view.  And I would hate for the outside world to think that I am speaking for you because I don’t think that individuals should (unless done tongue-in-cheek) speak on behalf of other individuals without their clear consent.  And I don’t have your clear consent.  Therefore, when I go on that radio show, I am presenting my own point-of-view.

Okay, back to the show.

So I obviously am there presenting as an individual.  And Collura is there presenting as the voice of an organization — Resolve.  And Port is there as the go-between who asked individuals to set aside their needs for the greater good of the whole.

I am very comfortable speaking about infertility, and I always have been.  It wasn’t a point I needed to get to, it was a place I started at.  I also have a great support system, a family history of infertility, and I live in a major city.  These three points make it easy for me to be comfortable speaking about infertility, and I’m well aware that if I didn’t have those three things, I probably wouldn’t have started telling people about my wonky ovaries immediately upon discovering that I have wonky ovaries.

I think everyone has their reasons for wanting to speak out or not speak out.  Johnny Weir didn’t want the focus to be on his sexuality instead of what he was doing on the ice.  Resolve wants you to add your voice so we can get understanding and support.

And both are legitimate needs — the individual ones and the community ones — and the discussion needs to be how we balance it.  How we stop ourselves as a community from pressuring people to speak out and how we push ourselves as individuals to do so when we think it will help us in the long run. (I’m not a big fan of telling for telling’s sake.)

I both agree and disagree with Port that our silence is what is stopping us from getting insurance coverage as she states in her post:

However, what I didn’t realize is that infertility patients’ reluctance to discuss their struggles and advocate for change is directly preventing those affected from getting the support and funding they deserve.

I both agree and disagree that talking about it is going to create the change we wish to see.  The GLBT community is incredibly well-organized and vocal, and yet talking about issues and getting the facts out there hasn’t created a smooth road towards everyone accepting gay marriage.  On the illness front, I think we can still see the stigma that those experiencing mental illness deal with daily in terms of both public perception and insurance coverage — and they have a whole branch of NIH!

Which isn’t a reason not to talk about it.  To not fight against the PETAs of this world.  To not support Resolve’s Advocacy Day (May 5th, people!).  That would be apathy.  Letting the outside world beat you down like that — beat the words out of your mouth or out of your fingertips — would be the tragedy.

Because yes, even though it doesn’t make a clear difference, I still think we should fight the good fight.  When we can.  And to step back when, as individuals, we don’t feel like we can lend our voice.

By which I mean, if your stomach is in knots about coming out on your Facebook page for NIAW, I don’t think you should unless pushing yourself past that point is your personal goal.  But I think if you’re like me and talking about infertility is as comfortable as admitting that you’ve read all four Twilight books (by which I mean that you’re slightly embarrassed but generally defiant), then hells yeah — get out there and educate.  And regardless of which side of the speaking spectrum you fall, we are all part of this terrible, wonderful, heartbreaking, close-knit community.

And I count myself lucky (and obviously unlucky) that we’re all in the trenches together.  But like any good platoon, I have your back and I know you have mine even if, as individuals, we sometimes need to hang back or fight as we see fit.  Okay, so that last part isn’t really analogous to the military at all.  But I think you know what I mean.  Don’t lose who YOU are in all of this.  It’s individuals who make up the whole.

Thank you for your thoughts on the PETA campaign.  I hope it does turn into good PR for NIAW — that would be a clear silver lining.  And I heard that PETA in the end removed the reference to NIAW from their campaign.  Which was obviously the goal, so there is a lot to celebrate there.

Even if I wasn’t writing about it, I was thinking about it a lot — though more in terms of whether it’s better to speak out or be silent in this particular situation.  Even with the goal reached, I’m still thinking about it.  Which may seem pointless.  But indulge me in thinking aloud because I don’t think this will be the last time (since it certainly wasn’t the first time) that we’ll see insensitivity play out on the Internet or in the face-to-face world.

There is this little girl we used to know who is the twins’ age.  She is in no uncertain terms, a bully.  She is also six, so the damage she can do is fairly minimal, but still (and while we haven’t seen her for a year, recent reports from mutual friends is that she hasn’t changed a bit).  She will ram her body into another kid on purpose while they’re playing a sports game.  She’ll walk by you and smack you.  She’ll call you “baby” and tell you that she hopes you wet your bed tonight. (She’s a charmer!)

The reality is that she is so over-the-top that it makes it difficult to know whether to respond.  Her parents are useless — they see the behaviour and say nothing.  There are two ways we can tell our kids to respond: (1) take a stand, let her know that her smack hurt you, and ask her to stop.  Or (2) ignore her in the largest sense of the word after giving her a dismissive wave.

I’ve watched both choices play out.  In the first case, the kid laughs and does it again.  In the second case, the kid simply does it again.

Neither choice actually changes the behaviour since behaviour is internalized.  The only person who is going to change that kid is… that kid.  We can remove her from a game or the playground and stop something in the short-term, but what I mean is that we can’t change who she is at her core.  The only person who can do that is that little girl.

We can hope that our lack of engagement turns her around when she notices how she has no friends, but we haven’t actually seen that happen yet.  Her parents could help since we are talking about a six-year-old, but again, this is not a normal kid who is being called a bully who actually has her heart in the right place and needs guidance.  This is a kid who IS a bully.  There is nothing else that we know about her personality.  We don’t see any other side of it.  This is how she interacts with the world, her modus operandi.

I see this girl very differently from how I see kids who generally have their heart in the right place, but — like all kids — will sometimes prey on someone weaker in order to make themselves feel better or who will test the social limits to see how hard they can push.

Back when we saw her on the playground, I begged the twins to simply ignore her and walk away, though also felt that it should be up to them to react how they needed to react provided they didn’t do something outside the confines of decent behaviour.  For instance, I didn’t want them smacking her back.  But if they needed to shout at her to release their own hurt feelings, then, by all means, do it.

Both the story of this little bully and PETA raises an interesting question — when is it better to ignore a bully and when is it better to address them?  Take, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church.  Some people rally right back at them.  Some people ignore them rather than giving them the attention they seek.  I don’t think it comes down to one option being better than another, but rather, how do you choose which one you use?

For me, I am so wholly against PETA that this campaign felt like a drop in a very big bucket of hate that they continuously foment in order to utilize the angry energy of targeted groups.  I didn’t feel the need to write about it or send a letter to them because — like the Westboro Baptist Church — it isn’t going to change the behaviour in the long term even if it changes it for this particular campaign.  You are not dealing with rational people who generally have their heart in the right place.  You are dealing with an organization whose tactics have been specifically to upset people in order to get their attention.

I also completely understand if you didn’t know this about PETA prior to this campaign.  As a life-long vegetarian, I’m pretty familiar with the ongoing antics of the group as well as its lack of respect in the overall animal rights/vegetarian circles in which I run.  Therefore, I probably approached this campaign with more of an eye roll than seething anger due to that prior knowledge.

I am absolutely pro-fighting-the-good-fight: speaking out when you have a chance to change someone’s mind.  Speaking out when if you change their mind it will benefit you greatly — for instance, participating in Resolve’s advocacy work on the Hill, trying to change stubborn lawmaker’s minds.  It’s May 5, 2011 this year!  Truly, if you want to make a difference, that is the event to focus on.  That is the activism that could truly change your life and change other infertile men and women’s lives.  That is an event that I would define as the “good fight.”

Speaking out when you are correcting inaccuracies — I think it would have made a stronger statement and been more educational if the posts aimed at PETA hadn’t been of the “infertility is not a joke” variety but instead used the space to reeducate specifically on how animal adoption and human adoption cannot and should not be equated with one another.

I’m thrilled that the reference to NIAW was removed, but I’d also love to think that bystanders walked away with new knowledge.  Or greater sensitivity.  Or that something more was gained.

I wish instead of focusing on changing PETA, we had taken all of that anger and energy and directed it towards actions that would have made a huge difference in our lives — writing our congressperson instead of writing PETA, for instance.  I was really impressed with the posts that didn’t speak about PETA, but instead used the energy as a diving board to jump early into NIAW and educating readers about infertility.  About the emotional side of infertility.  All the people who used their anger from this to come out to friends and family and educate them about infertility.

I’m more on the fence when it comes to joining in a fight that someone else is picking.  For me, there’s a difference between fighting with the bully girl or the Westboro Baptist Church or PETA because they want a fight.  They want your hatred because they’re using your hatred.  They want your anger because they hope to utilize your anger.  They were hoping for a fight and we’ve given it to them.  I don’t think they picked the infertility community because they thought we’d quietly take it.  I think they picked a random group knowing that every random group they’ve chosen so far has taken the bait.  There has been no group that they’ve encountered who hasn’t made a big noise and they’ve done the same thing again and again.  Which, for me, speaks more to the effectiveness of indifference in this situation.  Of ignoring.

I think the response to bullying has to be personal — that we can’t say there is a one-size-fits-all-situations solution.  That some people needed to speak out for their own peace of heart, and in that case, they should.  And some people needed to roll their eyes and walk away from it, and in that case, they should.  I guess my question is how do we decide which way to go when the answer isn’t clear to our gut?  When we’re on the fence and we simply don’t know what will benefit our own peace of heart nor what is best for society on the whole?

Did we just do society a disfavour by fanning the flames?  PETA has learned once again that if they target a group — pretty much any group — they will get a rise out of them and get the free publicity.  Did we just ensure that PETA will do another campaign in the future, choosing another group and trying to get them riled up so they can borrow the eyes of their members?  They’ve done it with the Jews, they’ve done it with the African-American community, they’ve done it with the infertility community… did we all just ensure that there will be another community after us?

Were they going to do it anyway regardless of how we respond like the bully girl? (My sense, if you want to know the truth, is that they most likely will do this again whether we fought back or whether we didn’t fight back.)

And when they do it again, are we going to jump in and lend our support to that group, or will we only fight if it affects us directly?  An uncomfortable question, but I think an important one.  One that I ask without judgment — I don’t think there is a simple answer as to whether or not you jump to support the next group.

For me, personally, I was uncomfortable speaking out about this one because I didn’t speak out with other campaigns that bothered me (choosing instead to ignore).  I also would feel obligated to support future groups targeted, and I wasn’t sure how I felt about doing that.

Will the Westboro Baptist Churches of this world continue to spread their messages of hate, will the PETAs of this world continue to exploit people emotionally in order to bring attention to their cause regardless of whether we feed the flames or don’t feed the flames?

BUT.

As Jjiraffe states, did we just make a huge statement about our community?  She writes:

So my protest of PETA is twofold. To inform the public that infertility is painful and awful, and should not be made fun of. Because that’s a message that doesn’t get out much. But also to alert ANY organization wanting to belittle our community that you BETTER NOT. We’re organized, and kinda powerful.

I think there’s a lot of worth in a don’t-fuck-with-us moment to show the world that we are not only well-organized, but we can make a lot of noise.

BUT.

I also think Katie makes a great point both in her comment and in her post about knowing when to fight and when to lay down your figurative gun:

But this whole fiasco has also made me realize something else: I’m tired of fighting. Not the disease, but the ignorance. Every time it seems as though our community makes headway in trying to educate the public about infertility, there’s someone waiting to knock us back down again. Why must we always be the ones who end up with the bloodied, scraped knees?

You must keep fighting for those things that stand in the way of family building — fight your body, fight for insurance coverage, fight the restrictive laws, fight for ethical behaviour from agencies and clinics.  But then there is this other side of it.  Is it a need to fight back against ignorance?  I’d say yes when that ignorance trickles down and makes the problems you’re fighting in the first category.  Is it still a need if that ignorance is simply ridicule or a distraction?  It’s annoying, it’s terrible — yes.  But do we need to always pick up the figurative gun?  And how do we decide when it’s “worth it?”

I don’t think there are clear answers, nor do I think that we’ll come to complete agreement.  And I think the personal answer (what’s best for the individual and what do they need to do to be at peace with themselves) will be very different from the community answer.  I don’t think anyone can answer definitively whether it’s best to fight back or know what is lost or gained from fighting back — I’m only asking how we decide when to fight back and when to dismissively give someone/an organization the figurative eye roll.

P.S. I am challenging you to take any energy you felt over the PETA campaign and channel it into activism such as Resolve’s Advocacy Day.  That would be the true silver lining in all of this.  If you can make it to D.C., go to D.C.  If not, there is plenty you can do from home.

I have a lot to say, but my thoughts are a jumbly mess.  I don’t think now would be a good time to try to place them down in a post.  Nor does it feel right to not write about it and write about something else, if that makes any sense.

Whenever I use the term “jumbly,” I think about Edward Lear’s poem, “The Jumblies.”  It reminds me of one of my closet friends who biked through SE Asia (hello, sweetest).  I believe I told her that she was wonderful AND crazy before she left.  And I definitely told her that she was wonderful, crazy, and lucky when she returned.

They went to sea in a Sieve, they did,
In a Sieve they went to sea:
In spite of all their friends could say,
On a winter’s morn, on a stormy day,
In a Sieve they went to sea!
And when the Sieve turned round and round,
And every one cried, ‘You’ll all be drowned!’
They called aloud, ‘Our Sieve ain’t big,
But we don’t care a button! we don’t care a fig!
In a Sieve we’ll go to sea!’
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.

If you don’t know this poem, I would click over and read the whole thing.  I think it should be handed out at every graduation, read by everyone who is at any crossroad.

When I hear that poem, I think about the people who take chances and the people who point out the rational facts and the people who go down in a sieve and those who somehow make it to the other side.  And is it all just luck?  Or is there something more to it?

*******

As I said in the NaBloPoMo post:

NaBloPoMo is also a good fit because it is now the receptacle of my daily, unending string of questions, which have now been shunted into daily writing prompts.  One of which I will offer each week in Roundup to entice you to one day commit to doing NaBloPoMo.  I’m calling it ComOnNaPro (Comment on NaBloPoMo Prompt) — a chance to test in a comment if you have the brain power to do a full month of NaBloPoMo.

So try your hand at a single prompt each week and if you can think of an answer, perhaps consider doing the entire month at some point.

ComOnNaPro: Discuss a friendship that has sprouted from interactions on the Internet.

You can either answer this in a comment, or if you’re moved to do so, answer it in a post on your blog and then come back here and let me know the permalink to the post.

*******

And now, the blogs…

Wonderfully Ordinary has a post about going home as well as caring for aging parents.  It is something I hadn’t considered before, and as someone in advance maternal age, it has given me food for thought about the future of my children.  The point she makes is that while all children will turn around and care for their parents, she is doing it at a much younger age than most people since her parents were older when they had her.  She writes, “It doesn’t feel that long ago that we used to joke about that and now it’s here.  So I knew this would happen, but I didn’t know it would happen now.”  Is it hard to read — yes.  But I think it’s also important to hear even if there is nothing one can do to change a situation.

When she found herself being mocked on a message board, Write Mind Open Heart countered with this thoughtful post about why she is anti anti-open adoption (she may also be pro-open adoption, but there is actually a distinct difference she is making here).  It’s an interesting read and a thought-provoking read, but it’s also a even-handed response that provides Googlers who come over from the fray with the other side.

Twice the Fun (Plus One)’s post about her unused name made me bawl.  As I said in my comment over there: “We have this name for our third child picked out and there is a little stretch of road that always makes me think of this name. I have to drive it several times a week and when I do, I think this name in my head. The twins are usually with me in the back seat when this happens and when it does, I feel both here and not here. At the same time.”  It’s an interesting thought — the child who is almost corporal who isn’t there, simply based on a name vs. a true existence.

Lastly, From IF to When has a post about fighting the good fight.  It goes through how infertility has changed her, has turned her into a person who feels the need to fight back.  This line took my breath away: “Sticks and stones never hurt my bones. Words did, a little. But taking away my womanhood ruined me.”  The comments (especially amiracle4us) are worth reading too.

The roundup to the Roundup: More to say when I get my thoughts straightened out, but until then, cogitate on Lear’s “The Jumblies.”  Answer ComOnNaPro.  And lots of good posts to read.

I was asked if I was going to write anything about the PETA campaign.  But the reality is that — for me — it would be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.  There is so much wrong with PETA that to focus on this sole campaign dismisses everything else they do that pisses me off.  And I write that as a life-long vegetarian, non-fur-wearing woman.

Really, is demeaning those with infertility any worse than their Holocaust on Your Plate campaign?  Or their “Are Animals the New Slaves?” campaign? (I missed it when it was in DC, but I was told they dressed up in KKK hoods to stand by their signs.)  Or their misogynistic ads objectifying women?  I mean, they’ve offended me as a Jew, a woman… why solely focus on how they crap on infertile people?

There’s definitely a point to addressing how asinine they are, but so much of what they do is to get this type of attention.  The majority of the world thinks PETA is manned by douchebags and avoids their website.  So I have mixed feelings about sending people their way that would otherwise be ignoring PETA on any other day.

Obviously, in writing this, I just brought them to your attention therefore doing what I just said I didn’t want to do.  Curse you, PETA, and your Jedi mind games.

The flip side, of course, is that you have to speak out against the PETAs of the world.  Against the Robert Morris dancers of this world.  Against all the groups who make idiotic choices.  Ignoring isn’t always the best policy.  So I fully support those who are choosing to write about the campaign and taking a stand even if I’m not.  Until I am.  To explain why I’m not.

So… um… no, I have nothing to say about that particular campaign because I don’t have time to unpack the numerous problems I have with PETA.  And how disappointed I am in them as an organization.  And how much it sucks that instead of doing good work and receiving attention that way, they stoop to enraging various groups so they’ll give them the free publicity.

Because honestly, if not for this campaign, would you have ever thought today about PETA?  Or would they have remained a mostly ignored organization?

So what is the answer when this happens?  Is it better to simply ignore rather than giving them what they want (the publicity; access to the eyes in your community because they’re not going to be coming over to see what PETA is doing otherwise)?  Is it better to speak out?

For those who have no clue what I’m talking about, I direct you to the ever astute Hannah Wept, Sarah Laughed who has been having a back and forth conversation with PETA.  Because I’d rather link there than to PETA’s site.

Welcome to the first concert on the blog.  Get your lighters ready because here we go…

[For those who are new: Concert on the Blog Series (and the attached “performance lobby”) is a weekly post highlighting a musical, theater, film, or comedy performance. It’s also a chance for viewers to communicate with the artists via the comment section on the post. In other words, it’s free publicity for artists and it’s free enjoyment for viewers — a win-win for all participants.  Please click here to find out how you can have your performance featured.]

Melissa the Emcee: One Ring Zero is the brain-child of Michael Hearst and Joshua Camp.  Though their sound and record themes are completely unique, if I had to compare them to another band in order to prepare you, I would say they’re like an incredibly well-read They Might Be Giants.  Or the circus if the circus rocked out.  Or a musical Neil Gaiman.  Which actually isn’t that far a stretch since they are the band best known as being part of “lit rock” for their project, As Smart as We Are, setting the words of famous authors to music (samples from that album below).

For those who prefer their music straight no pictures…

Josh’s favourite is the one using the words of Jonathan Ames called “The Story Of The Hairy Call.”

[audio:https://www.stirrup-queens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/17-The-Story-Of-The-Hairy-Call-2.mp3]

Probably my favourite song from that project is the one from Michael Chabon explaining why he can’t participate in the project:

[audio:https://www.stirrup-queens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/15-MC.mp3]

There’s also the slow, creepy words of Neil Gaiman:

[audio:https://www.stirrup-queens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/12-On-The-Wall-1.mp3]

But it’s not all author’s words. Their rewriting of Holst’s The Planets on its 100-year anniversary is a brilliant idea.  Here is Pluto:

[audio:https://www.stirrup-queens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/12-Pluto.mp3]

For those who prefer to see what they’re hearing…

Michael Chabon:

Lemony Snicket (also known as Daniel Handler):

Venus:

For those in love with the band (and please let them know in the comment section below), you can find them in many places on the Web:

• Website:  www.oneringzero.com
• Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/One-Ring-Zero/29957089340
• Twitter: twitter.com/oneringzero

*******

The performance lobby (right above the comment section where you can hang out and discuss the band and the artist of the day) is currently featuring the photography of a fellow blogger, Funny Little Pollywogs.

She started out snapping pictures around her city with a point and shoot camera.  When she inherited her Nikon DSLR camera from her grandfather, her photography hobby blossomed.  Her love for portrait photography developed as she witnessed the joy that it brings to others.  She specializes in maternity, babies, and family portraits.  She is a full time teacher and passionately enjoys blogging and her photography.  She is based in south-central PA and will travel to surrounding areas.

Not Just a Kiss

Now go mill about the lawn (fine, the comment section), hanging out with your fellow concert goers and chat about what you just heard and saw.