it’s not about you

This makes me so mad, I can hardly think straight.

Can you say “sexist?”

This is nothing but outright discrimination against women. Perhaps they should deny their husbands insurance unless they get a vasectomy, since these women are only worth insuring unless they are sterilized. Just like the drug company is only targeting Gardasil to adolescent girls when they get HPV by having SEX which usually involves SOMEONE ELSE, and more dominantly, a BOY.

OR just like all the main symptoms for heart disease we are told to look for are predominately found in men, while the symptoms women face are hardly understood or studied as much.

Or just like how women used to be diagnosed with female hysteria and subject to ridiculous, harmful, and demeaning treatments because some “had a tendency to cause trouble.”

I don’t know, or just like how women are told if they nurse their babies longer than six months they’re abusing their children.

Or how stay-at-home moms are pitted against working moms as if we’re all a different breed from each other.

Or, you know, how the rumors about the casts from Sex and the City or Desperate Housewives are always cat-fighting, but no one starts rumors about the Sopranos, because you know, women just cat-fight and men are rational.

I’m effing sick and tired of the establishment discriminating against us just for being women.

How ’bout that pay raise now?

This past Friday morning, I woke up, got dressed and logged onto my computer to check my e-mail. While I waited for my e-mail to download, I began to get a cup of coffee together. My daily SFGate headline news e-mail popped out at me, with this article in the subject line:

“Homeschoolers’ setback sends shockwaves through the state.”

I hadn’t even finished the article before I had received two separate phone calls from people, each with a seemingly benign, “So, how are you?” that was actually loaded to find out whether or not I had seen the article yet.

I felt utterly and completely broad-sided. I actually told that to Robin when she called at 8:30, and I think I scared her at first, judging by her startled, “what?!?” in response. I had to clarify that I hadn’t been physically broad-sided - I had yet to leave the house, after all.

We haven’t said anything publicly yet about our decision regarding our kids’ education, though a lot of people already know. We have decided to homeschool Mary Judah during the next school year, which will be her kindergarten year. Beyond that, we aren’t making any commitments (though I have to say my stubborn side is leaning toward homeschooling just to stick it to that judge!). I have been doing a lot of research and studying and talking to people and praying and evaluating and trying to figure out what it is we’re supposed to do regarding her education and the choices we want to make as we raise her the type of opportunities we want her to have in life. Same goes for Killian, and that should go without speaking, though Mary Judah’s formal education is much more imminent.

I never in a million years thought I would ever homeschool, ever. I actually said to people, “I will never homeschool my children.” Of course, that was during those light and care-free days before morning sickness, and rotund bellies, and screaming in the middle of the night as I pushed a human being out of my own body.

Then I took one look at my daughter’s face, fell hopelessly in love with her, and the seeds were planted. What can I say? I couldn’t imagine ever being separated from her. As she’s grown and I’ve gotten to know her and helped to shape her into the person she is and will become, I’ve questioned my resolute decision not to homeschool. I started asking myself, why? Well, why not?

I began reading and researching and having come to grips with the misconceptions I’ve had, and through all of that, decided to go for it. This ruling that came down late last month has infuriated me. There are so many holes in it, it’s not even funny. From the education code, to what makes a private school, to religious reasons for homeschooling, to teaching credentials, to parental rights, to the real reason for compulsory education, there are just so many things wrong with it. And I’m going to talk about all of them. That’s right. Like you thought for a second I wouldn’t.

Here’s what happened in a nutshell. If I don’t have details as accurate as I think I do, I will most certainly go back and change them:

According to the ruling, the homeschooling parents of eight children were taken to court in a child welfare case. As the case progressed, the attorney for two of the children asked to court to direct the juvenile court to order the children to enroll and attend a public or private school. The parents asserted that they had a constitutional right to homeschool their children.

The ruling states that no, parents do not have a constitutional right to oversee their children’s education at home and that according to the education code, in this particular case, the parents were not following any of the provisions allowed to educate their children.

The court then asserts that homeschooling in general cannot fall under the private school allowance in the education code, and actually goes so far as to consider the process of parents who establish private schools in their homes as a means of following the law and then teaching their children at home to being a “ruse.”

The court also states that parents who wish to teach their children at home must hold a valid credential in the grade level being taught.

From the ruling:

It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught, or (3) one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance applies to the child.

Exemptions to compulsory public school education are made for, among others, children who (1) attend a private full-time day school (§ 48222) or (2) are instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught (§ 48224).

Such representation does not constitute a statement that the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles County Office of Education knowingly gave their stamp of approval to children being deprived of an education in a public or private full-time day school setting, or by a credentialed tutor, through the ruse of enrolling them in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent.

One of the issues raised about the ruling by the Homeschool Legal Defense Association is that “the decision is categorical and was not written to be limited to just the facts of this case,” which means that if the Supreme Court ratifies this ruling, it can be applied to homeschoolers across the board, not just to the people involved in the case, resulting in a benchmark case to be able to prosecute homeschooling parents across the state. Lovely. Also keep in mind that, like it or not, California is a bellwether state and the decisions made here can have dramatic impacts reverberating across the country.

Where do things stand now? From what I understand, the parents are appealing to the state’s Supreme Court. The HSLDA is getting involved, along with other homeschooling organizations, on several fronts. The gubernator has said he will support homeschooling families and said that “if the courts don’t protect parents’ rights then, as elected officials, we will.” Several state legislators have promised to introduce legislation to protect homeschooling and the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell has said he believes homeschooling in still legal in the state.

The HSLDA also has a petition you can sign to ask the Supreme Court to depublish the ruling, which would prevent in from being used as a precedent and limit its scope to the particular case.

I’ll have another post tomorrow.

That if enough parents getting angry over Hannah Montana ticket scalping could bring about investigations and legal action, then parents getting angry over the courts taking away their right to homeschool without a teaching credential could bring about positive change as well.

I mean, come on. The Hannah Freaking Montana Bill? Actually, the “Freaking” part isn’t really a part of it. I added that myself. I think it sounds better.

I’m going to be doing a series of posts (rather than one LONG post) with my thoughts on the ruling handed down by a California appellate court late last month, now that my initial anger is out of the way, so for those of you who have told me you miss “hearing my voice” on the internet - this one’s for you. Okay, not really for you. But kind of.

I’ll be giving up my nightly hot bath to do this, just so you know I MEAN IT.

Barack? Or Hillary?

Barack? Or Hillary?

That is the question.

I’m gonna think about it through this cup of coffee and then I’m going to load Killian in the stroller, walk up the hill to my polling station, and make up my mind.

Other thoughts on my mind are what I’m going to give up for Lent. Besides swearing, that is. I should wear my T-shirt tomorrow.

Oh! And tomorrow - we are hosting a 7:30 a.m. Ash Wednesday service for anyone who’s interested. I meant to blog about this sooner, but the kids have STILL BEEN SICK. E-mail me or comment if you’d like to come, and I’ll let you in on all the details. Now I just have to go find my ashes…

At the bottom of my daily New York Times e-mail, there is always an “On This Day” feature, outlining an important historical event. This was today’s:

On Jan. 12, 1915, the United States House of Representatives rejected a proposal to give women the right to vote.

Damn that House of Representatives!

On Barack and Hillary:

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.

What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

Gloria Steinem on why “Woman Are Never Front-Runners” via the New York Times.

So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.

So, last week, our damn-fine-looking mayor decided to reduce the number of city-owned trash cans on the streets of our fair city. Apparently this little piece of news got “thrown out,” what with all the other political excitement we’ve had lately, and was “buried” so we didn’t have to “waste” our time on it (take that, Cecilia Vega!).

Who knew, that at $700 a pop, and saving the city almost $215,000, just for the cans themselves, that removing them would anger so many people? Any business that sells food or beverages is required by law to have their own trash can outside, and many businesses don’t even have trash service (fascinating, I know). Do we really have that much trash we have to throw away? I mean, really?

I think it kind of makes sense - Gavin’s reasoning is that the current cans are being used for household trash, which they aren’t supposed to be, and people are throwing too much trash in them. Sounds like an Onion article, I know.

It makes me think of the day we got our car…

I was driving home after having picked it up, and was on 20th Street at a red light at Folsom. There was a teenage girl crossing the street with the Folsom’s green light, eating a bag of chips. She finished, and just let the bag go, mid-air. Just like that. She let it go. She didn’t even bother to take the time to throw it to the ground, as if that was even too much trouble for her. There was a trash can right on the corner as she stepped up onto the sidewalk.

I was amazed. Is it so hard to just wait the one and a half seconds and put it IN the trash can? Why throw it on the ground, I mean, just let it go mid-air? I’m always surprised when people don’t want to take more ownership of their community. I just don’t get it.

Lots of things have been happening in the news in San Francisco lately. Between Ed Jew’s problems, Gavin Newsom’s and Chris Daly’s verbal fisticuffs, and the resurgence of gang activity in the Mission (Dad, you should stop reading right now), it’s been a busy month. Oh, and it’s Pride, too.

Ed Jew:
Dude, seriously? Please, step down. Step down, step down, step down. If you’re not completely corrupt, then you’re just stupid. Either way, you shouldn’t be a leader of our city and so you’ve got to go.

And, Ed, may I offer you a tip? If you’re trying to prove you live in the Sunset, don’t turn yourself in in Burlingame, where your other house is. Doofus.

Chris Daly:
Dude! Your credibility? Totally SHOT. You want people to take you seriously and have respect for you? Then show it for others. This is not junior high (although it IS city politics, you could very well make that argument…). You want to accuse Newsom of using cocaine? Then do it in the proper venue. All you’re doing is making yourself look like a total ass. And bring some proof to the table. By the way, using people who claim to have done coke with the mayor isn’t exactly credible - they’re cokeheads for cryin’ out loud.

And that Gavin? Aren’t you a damn fine-looking mayor? Except for that episode last year when you decided to “try something new.” Please. Keep the hair gel. (My friend Robin said that when news of Gavin’s affair came out, a collective sigh of disappointment could be heard throughout the Castro. Too funny.)

My ‘hood:
We know. We’ve got problems. I do, in fact, take the kids to the park where the shooting occurred. I don’t let Killian fly colors or play soccer with the big boys, so we’re usually okay. And I impose a strict 2 a.m. curfew on Judah - if she’s not in the door by then, I take away her Polly Pockets. But this, this is not the solution. The Mission has its problems, but there are so many good things about it as well, and I’m not just talking about learning the art of poop-dodging while taking a stroll, though that IS a handy skill.

We have a huge mix of diversity here, and cultural backgrounds are only the jumping-off point. There are very poor people who live here alongside very rich people. Families live next to single hipsters, nannies next to financial district suits. There’s a retirement facility, a community music center, a group of self-professed Satanists (true!), a community activist center, and park, all on my block. There’s tons of shops, restaurants, bars, clubs, parks, a vibrant arts community, and a plethora of public transportation. We’re centrally-located, and I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “It’s always sunny in the Mission.” And, AND, we have Ritual and Tartine. I mean, come on. I love my neighborhood. And I’m going to be sad to leave it. Sniff, sniff.

I get asked if I’m scared to live in my neighborhood. I’ve read places online where people are actually encouraged not to explore the Mission while visiting San Francisco because it’s “not safe.” MOST of the shootings occur at night, but there are some during the day. MOST of the violence is targeted and specific - it’s extremely rare to be a random target of violent crime. And truthfully, your odds are pretty good - I mean it’s mostly in suburban-rural areas where someone goes totally ape-shit and does something crazy. I try to avoid wearing gang colors and I leave my grill at home (I only bring it out for those special occasions).

The Bright Spot:
At least there’s some justice after all in this world.

I read a Washington Post article this morning that got me thinking. Here’s a quote:

A 2006 University of Maryland study on chat rooms found that female participants received 25 times as many sexually explicit and malicious messages as males.

And another:

Joan Walsh, editor in chief of the online magazine Salon, said that since the letters section of her site was automated a year and a half ago, “it’s been hard to ignore that the criticisms of women writers are much more brutal and vicious than those about men.”

What concerns me most is whether or not police departments will take these types of threats seriously or whether they will brush them off as trivial. I’m not here to present a case for the validity of the Internet as a form of real community and communication. If you’re a skeptic, nothing I say will convince you anyway. I know my husband makes a living - a very GOOD living, as a matter of fact - by helping create content for this virtual world. That makes it real enough. He jokes that he makes a living by creating things that don’t tangibly exist.

A death threat, a threat to strangle, kill, rape and molest on the Internet is just as real as a threat in the physical world and should be taken as such. It is sad and a shame that due to the anonymity of the online forum that people can get away with thinking it is okay to make such threats, or pass them off as jokes, that women’s voices are being silenced. That they are being introverted because that are so afraid of what someone might do to them, or say they will do to them, if they continue to speak their mind. And that is NOT okay.

Generally, men don’t face this problem. If a man speaks his mind, it’s accepted as a part of life. But when a woman speaks her mind, nay, dares to speak her mind, she is labeled - “outspoken,” “opinionated,” “masculine,” “bossy,” “bitch” - and must deal with consequences, threats, and punishments, simply for being who she is. I’m sick of it. I’m tired of it. I want to see change taking place.

As women, we can speak up against this, and I think we should. At the same time, I don’t fault the women who have retreated and pulled away - no one else can make a decision for another about how much risk they are willing to accept. I’m proud and privileged to be in global community with both men and women who value women’s voices and interactions and stand in solidarity to help all of our voices to be heard.

Joshua and the kids and I went to look at a two-bedroom apartment yesterday. As we were finishing up our tour, I went downstairs to talk to the leasing agent. She was finishing up a conversation with another prospective tenant, so I stood there and waited for them to finish. He asked her on his way out the door and down the steps if she was also the one showing the place on Capp Street. She didn’t know which property he was talking about.

As he was walking down the steps, I moved closer to ask her a few questions and jokingly called out after the man, “Which place on Capp?”

The leasing agent turned to me and firmly said, “Oh, you don’t want to live on Capp Street - that’s not a good area.”

I looked at her for half of a second while I debated in my head what to say next.

“Actually, we live on Capp Street.”

You could see her visibly try to recover.

“Oh, so that’s why you’re moving.”

“No, we’re moving because we have a family of four in a one-bedroom apartment and we need more space. I love where we live.”

She then started talking about how she had heard it wasn’t a good area and so on and so forth and I re-emphasized how I liked where we live, that it WAS a good section and in no uncertain terms put to rest her her misperceptions.

Don’t talk bad about my ‘hood, yo.

Oh, and we won’t be renting that apartment after all.