The Evolution of the Good Fight

Generally we all know time will allow the truth to come out, and will also heal all wounds.  We find the truth in why or how things happens, and what the motivations are.  Sometimes it takes days or weeks; maybe sometimes months or years.  Or it takes a specific separate, but related event, to trigger the unveiling of the truth.  I have found that a lot of the roller coaster emotion that people face often relate to whether they or those around them are willing to fight the good fight.  Fight or flight?

I feel that over the past however long I went all the way - fought the good fight.  Nothing different that what I do in every area of my life - no half-assing, fighting the good fight, don't quit until all avenues have been attempted (I mean, I instigated a holy war with some members of my family because of something I believe in - can't wait for Christmas!).  There are clearly times when you give it all and it won't change; so you accept, adapt and overcome.  But, that should come at the end of the good fight - not before or during.  To the death (and you don't against a Sicilian when death is on the line). 

Obviously, not everyone has that approach, whether personally or professionally, and while that boggles my mind, it is something that I must accept. Judge me if you will, but I believe that not fighting the good fight is a symbol of cowardice - whether they are afraid of facing reality, facing the truth, or facing their fear. My preachiness and attempt to enlighten can only go so far when it comes to that.  But, I really don't think that's what it is - willing to "go the distance" should not be something that only a select few believe in, but a quality that makes a good leader, a good person, a good friend; taking the easy walk doesn't make you a better person.

I admit that maybe I wasn't always like this - I was afraid.  I had to learn that sometimes giving up on the good fight is worse and more painful than facing that fear.  I was probably used to people around me giving up, so I thought that was the way it went - a father who gave up and decided that I wasn't his kid (when I was 16 and stood up for myself, albeit I stood up for myself with a bit of spazziness as a 16 year old would); a stepfather who bailed on 5 of us.  It took me losing people, things, etc in order to figure out that everything important to you is worth fighting for.  I know I broke hearts and disappointed people, but I was lucky enough to learn that before I was ushered into real, post-college adulthood (because, really, "grown-up" doesn't start until you leave the awesomeness of a college environment).

When people give up on something they believe in, they care for, whatever, that ends with other people involved feeling used or abused.  Certainly unworthy.  Sometimes people just need to know they are worth fighting for.  So, we accept, adapt and overcome the fact that there are people like that.  No matter how painful it is, some people just don't believe in the good fight; they would rather take the easy road.  Their loss.

Becca and the Fragile Girl

As someone who is the perpetually single girl without an attentive boyfriend, and has more than most male friends, some of whom are single (or, at some point during our acquaintance, I knew them when they were single).  Certain types of girls can have a profound affect on the behaviors of most single males, and when they infiltrate groups, things change.  Such girls may be labeled as:

• Fragile
• Girly
• Not balls to the wall
• Quiet
• Pretty
• "The girls who end sentences with the voice influx like they are asking a question"
• Prissy

I have found that when males get around these types of girls (we will simply refer to them as girls in the post), they totally do a 180 in their personality, become overly attentive to such girls, and seem to all but forget about the other females in the periphery - mainly, those of us who do not fit into these descriptions, or could otherwise be more appropriately tagged as "broads" or "chicks" (in my vernacular, and will refer to them as chicks in this post). Such males literally completely reverse their previous inclinations.  The girl could be standing there in a long sleeve shirt, and they would willingly give the shirt off their back if she were to give the slightest hint of being chilly (not cold, chilly).  While, the other chicks standing around are in short sleeves and just as chilly (or probably more so because she was in short sleeves).  These chicks have even walked away, and the guys don't even notice she was missing because they were so smitten with the fragile girl. I am not saying the chicks needed the shirt or that it should have been offered to her (if she was really that cold she could have asked for it), but I am simply pointing out the fact that these boys rushed to make sure these fragile girls are comfortable/safe/whatever without the consideration of the other chick. I've given my jacket to a dude before b/c he was a wuss and was cold (not chilly, cold), so that is not nearly the point.

What is this fascination?  Is it the fact that it is not something that they see everyday so they are just totally infatuated with a girly girl?  I mean, if you were looking for a girly girl, why would you be hanging out with a chick?  For serious.

In case you didn't realize it, chicks have the same body parts that these girls do - and, don't tell me that chicks don't show off their assets.  We just don't take an hour flat ironing our hair every day or speak in quiet tones or keep our opinions to ourselves.  We may not act "feminine" by conventional definition - we love sports, we can discuss any action flick, we don't take crap from people, we tell it like it is, etc - but we are girls.  Just because we are brash and ballsy, doesn't mean we don't embrace our girl power (and in my opinion, I don't think girly girls really embrace their girl power, but their fragile femininity - big difference). We may not wear dresses, but we like jeans that make our asses look good, or tops that indicate DefCom3.  We are our own kind of feminine - the kick-ass, ballsy type.  Not the fragile feminine type. So what is the obsession with the girly, pink-loving, fragile kind?

I am not a second class citizen.

I am a female.


I am a woman.

Second class citizenship means having others tell you what to do with your body and life. It is what happens when I am forced to live with decisions of others, because I don't have the tools to protect myself or make those decision, because others don't want me to have them.  Second class citizenship also means not having support from anyone for equal pay for equal work.


And in case you don't realize, by throwing everything you have against a bill/policy/program that restricts a groups' access to basic healthcare and preventative medicine, like contraception, you are creating a group of second class citizens.  You are requiring my care to be held hostage by my employer and/or insurance plan, as I can't just swap out my job or insurance.  This program will protect my rights to care so my employer/insurance can't dick me over.  It can't fully protect us from be shamed for making our decisions, but at least we can make them.

Just because:
I take the pill... I am not a second class citizen.
I had more than one sexual partner... I am not a second class citizen.
I may like to go out and drink, and get a little crazy... I am not a second class citizen.
I may have a one-night stand... I am not a second class citizen.
I want to protect myself from pregnancy... I am not a second class citizen.
I may have spurts of being a "dirty slut" in between long term monogamous relationships... I am not a second class citizen.
I don't have a penis... I am not a second class citizen.
We had to fight for our right to vote, have a voice, inherit what is ours, work in certain professions, go to certain schools, etc.... I am not a second class citizen (now).
I decided to have a baby out of wedlock and I am the dreaded "single mother"... I am not a second class citizen.

I am not a second class citizen because:
Unless, you pulled a Minerva, I am the one who carries your children, not men.
I am the one forced to ensure there is population control (with or without the pill), not men.
I am the one who physically lives with the consequences of sex, not men.
I control what happens with my body, no one else should.
I decide who I have sex with, and when, no one else.
I don't hear any outcry against men having vasectomies, and that "stops" life just as much as the pill.
No one questions how much sex a man has, why should you question mine, and what protections I should have.
As long as the sex I have (or any one has) is consensual, you have no business concerning yourself with it.
I am taking precautions to protect myself when I do decide to have sex, so let me do it.
I probably have more balls than most "men" do.
Men just have to slap on a rubber or time it, and that's all the "birth control" they worry about, I am the one who wants to protect myself (and my partner).
We had to fight for the right to do a lot of things, and we won't stop.
I am amazing.
I will change the world.

'I'm a woman, I like men. If that means I'm not “lady-like”, then I guess I'm just not a lady! At least I'm honest.'

Access to Vagina Freedom

A few thoughts:

• Most people who are opposed to making women-specific healthcare available to all women are males (I refuse to call them men, because in some instances, they are more like boys).  They claim to be god-loving and god-fearing, therefore they shouldn't have to pay for women to take medications that kill human life (which is NOT what birth control does, BTW).  But, how pious would they be when they get someone pregnant due to the fact they timed the rhythm method wrong and the girl they hooked up with didn't have access to birth control (because, let's be realistic, only a small portion of so-called god-loving people waited until marriage)?  Would they be the "good" man they claim to be and raise that child - even if it was out of wedlock?  Would they turn on a dime and demand she have an abortion?  Or, what if you were happily married with several kids, and another child would be a huge financial and emotional burden for your family - you are just going to stop having sex? There are too many "what ifs" with "good" men - let women decide how to take care of their body.  After all, we are the ones who incubate the sucker.
• This law is about making access to overall women's healthcare available to all women by not allowing employers/insurance companies to decide not to provide it willy nilly.
• Keep government out of my religion, and keep government from inserting religion into decisions, personal or otherwise.
• This bill is requiring private (and public) entities to provide access/coverage to such healthcare - whether you like it or not, just because a college or hospital is "affiliated" with a church, does not change the fact that you are a private entity.  
• The Church or any other religious organization will not be paying for birth control, so give it a rest. The bill requires that employees have access to care specific to women's health - and insurance companies will pay for contraception for women who work for those entities that are exempt.
• The law was adopted so that all women can have access to affordable preventative medicine and to sustain overall women's health, which includes contraception.  Contraception lowers unwanted pregnancies, saves insurance companies money, and is better for women by lowering intensity of periods (therefore lowering instances of anemia and the pain - which may cause women to call in sick to work) and lowering the occurrence of ovarian cysts.
• The reason this was adopted was because treatments and medicine related to women's healthcare was NOT covered by all employers/insurance companies, and the government found that it was imperative for women to have access to this.  The government is there to protect the greater good and welfare of the public - and I don't see how women's healthcare is NOT something that will increase the greater good and welfare of women (and all citizens, for that matter, including those unborn children everyone is so worried about).  
• Why is it OK to have Viagara covered but not birth control? The government can make sure you can get it up, but not protect women from unwanted pregnancy? Even church affiliated organizations cover Viagara. I'm being dead serious - what the hell is the difference (and don't say birth control kills babies, because that is false)?
• If you needed a transplant, and your employer felt that such a procedure was against his/her religion, therefore insurance would not cover it, wouldn't you want someone to come in and protect your interests?  You wouldn't say get the government keep out of your life then.

The War on Women - I am looking at you Virginia!

Caveat: politics is contributing to the support/opposition of these bills/actions, so keep that in mind.  However, I do not see this war on chicks going away, so the point is always relevant!

Over the last few weeks, several things have gone down that directly insert government and, more so, politics into women's rights and health protection. Some key issues: Catholic employers not having to cover contraception, a Virginia bill that would require a trans-vaginal ultrasound in order to perform an abortion, abstinence only sex-ed, and another Virginia bill that says life begins at contraception.

The role of government, as opposed to the private sector, is to promote the well being and safety of the public through laws and rules.  I do not see how that duty spreads to telling women they can't take birth control or perform a function that does not directly impact any one else (except for maybe the seed planter). I think there is a key difference between government getting involved in (or more appropriately, protecting) healthcare/women's reproductive service and politics.  Government should have a role in protecting such rights, but politics is taking center stage to limit that.


Now, Virginia - your name was said to be an homage to "The Virgin Queen," Elizabeth I.  She was known for, among many other things, her religious tolerance.  And, now we have religion (mainly Catholic and evangelical churches) trying to insert (pun intended) their views on women.  Not men, just women. While Elizabeth may have been unmarried, bore no children, and was labeled a virgin, she could be considered an early symbol of women's liberation and freedom.  She, generally, chose not to marry - she brushed off several suitors for various reasons (and yes, they may have been political, but she did it); she had many male advisers around her, but she made the choices; she had lovers; she rallied her people around her; she did it by her rules.

Congress then convenes a panel to discuss the impact of the health care bill requirement of providing contraception with NO WOMEN present.  Really?!  In response I think we should have a discussion about requiring vasectomies to men who don't pay child support or have more than three baby mommas.  A panel full of women who have not received said money, and their children who are the real victims (I would sign up for that!).

I don't see them telling men that they can't take Viagara or get a vasectomy if they don't want to have kids.  It appears that these people believe that reproductive control rests solely on women, but don't think we should take pill or have an abortion, so we are effectively handcuffed to rely on men to get their timing right (look how the rhythm method worked for Mitt Romney). Women are then burdened to ensure that their partner pulls out at the right time or else we are stuck with the burden.  We can't help the fact that most men can't control themselves and misgauge when the "right" time to pull out is.  I wonder if the miracles of science ever create a "man pill" that will kill his swimmers, would the church or government oppose that? Probably not.

So, now, since we can't have the pill (and men are stupid and don't know when to pull out), we get pregnant.  You are telling me I have to get something inserted inside me to get an ultrasound - isn't that what got us here in the first place? When I had my tumor, I had to have one of those done, and that was NOT comfortable at all.  Women are already making a life changing decision (and that includes her choice to keep the child), and now you want to treat us like children and show us a picture? Do you think we didn't think about our options before?  Believe it or not, women who walk into a doctor's office or clinic have agonized over her choice - these women are not emotionally void people who don't think about the many options in front of her when faced with an unwanted pregnancy.  Who are you to assume that these women can't make decisions for themselves? 

It is a human's choice to have sex (or not), who to have sex with, and how they are to protect themselves from STD's and unwanted pregnancies. It is also a person's prerogative to follow or live by the tenets of the religion that they so choose.  Its funny how the Church is inserting itself into this conversation when most Catholics (myself included) believe in the fundamental right of and utilize birth control.  I am not saying the Church should pass out condoms or other forms of contraception at mass, but my decision to use contraception is between me and God.

And, this doesn't even consider women (and those GIRLS) who became pregnant because of rape or incest.  These women were violated because someone put something between her legs that SHE did not WANT there.  Now, you want to stick something else in there? While many believe terminating a pregnancy is acceptable in cases of rape or when the health of the mother is jeopardized, some still believe that abortion is never acceptable.  So, you are saying that a woman or girl who is raped and gets pregnant must give birth to her attackers child?  There is a lifetime of therapy ahead for both the mother and child in that case.

President Obama backed off of requiring Catholic health providers from dishing out contraceptives, but employees must be able to access it through insurance plans.  But now the government is now requiring women to go through hoops to have an abortion.  We are not in the 17th century when the Catholic Church ran the world - why are you giving into them, but limiting women's access to services?

As Amy Poehler said: DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

Old Familiar Faces

So, many who read this will probably figure out who I am talking about, but, whatever.

This weekend I had dinner with a former beau (we will call him Beau #1) who I haven't seen in probably 6 or 7 years.  While our relationship may have ended in college, for me there was always something special about our time together.  What was that something? I don't know. It was just a connection between us. Our conversation was natural and fun.  We reminisced, caught up on the goings of the last few years, happenings of family and friends, and future plans.  He remembered things about me, little things, things that seem silly, but in reality demonstrate our past connection (even though that connection was 8 years ago).  Like he laughed and didn't seemed surprised that I quote "Tombstone" a few times a week at work (I was still quoting movies back then), because, even back then, it was one of my fave flicks. While that may seem silly, it was selfishly reassuring.  I laughed with #1 about something that was "typical" Becca, or something that was "totally" #1 (or not), but I don't think that would happen with some subsequent beaus.  While we are only mere acquaintances now, our relationship then was important, special and fun; that no matter that so many years have past, we remember the wonderful fun times we had. We had some bad times, lots of rough patches, but we chose to discuss the good ones. Isn't that what really matters?

I started thinking about what other relationships are like that.  They are few and far between.  And I thought about the fact that Beau #1 may really know more about the person I am today than some people who are currently in my life. I think those moments with some other beaus would not include laughter but a rolling of my eyes.  That falls a bit on me.  I don't know if I wasn't open to having those moments; maybe I am in a bad spot without the luxury of hindsight (and it hasn't kicked in yet).

I think he knows what defines who I am more than subsequent beaus that I had spent significantly more time with, or it could just be the luxury of time.  If it's the former, what does that say about me? More importantly, I think, what does that say about my relationship with these beaus?  Did I not share that information?  Was Beau #1 just more receptive? Did he care more?  Did I care more? Was understanding people in his life more important than the others? Was I not as open or receptive to being "read" or understood because of my history with Beau #1 (and other men folk)? Was it just the fact that it was "young love"?

I don't think I intentionally kept little things about me secret, but maybe as I have become older and more cynical I have done so subconsciously.  Or was I blind to the fact that later beaus just didn't "get it" or that this type of "loyalty" wasn't as important to them.

So where is the difference? I think that loyalty is a big part of relationships (I am not talking about loyalty that, say, soldiers have on the battlefield, but strictly personal relationships) - whether it is to a romantic partner, friend, coworker, etc - and to be loyal you must have compassion, sympathy, empathy and understanding.  You can't be loyal to someone without knowing them .  You know what makes them tick, what to say that will always make the laugh, and what will make them see red with rage.  You have to be able to tell them you are sorry and put yourself in their shoes and feel their pain.  You have to have these pieces to have a real relationship with someone - whether romantic or friendship.  Its in your gut. That is what fosters loyalty and unless you are willing to find all of these things, you can never truly be a loyal friend or lover.  

I take pride in my loyalty to others, and my friends' loyalty to me; we all share each piece of the puzzle.  We surround ourselves with people like us, and if you yourself cannot appreciate these traits, you probably surround yourself with people with similar approaches to relationships, and as such they would probably not covet such traits.  And while you may be floating along believing you have a deep circle of trust, I would disagree.  Without loyalty, compassion, empathy and understanding, how can you ever truly trust or put yourself all in?  Would your friends call you if they need something? If not, then how can you be so sure that your circle of relationships is a real and healthy one?  And, in my opinion, these people are not necessarily ones that are "true" friends. Ergo, they would not be people I would want to surround myself with.

We can all find people that share pieces of the puzzle - those values of compassion, empathy, understanding and ultimately loyalty - and epitomize what we want in a partner (or friend).  If we allow ourselves to find it.

Doc: Sure you do. Say goodbye to me. Go grab that spirited actress and make her your own. Take that beauty from it, don't look back. Live every second. Live right on to the end. Live Wyatt. Live for me. Wyatt, if you were ever my friend - if ya ever had even the slightest of feelin' for me, leave now. Leave now... Please.

Wyatt : Thanks for always being there, Doc.

Superbowl XLVI - Deja Vu All Over Again

I sat through this once before.  No, I am not speaking of a Giants/Pats Superbowl (while we all did), I am talking about a heart-wrenching Championship series/match-up between the "big brother" from New York and they arch enemy (yes, ARCH enemy).  It was the Phillies/Yankees World Series. 

As a die hard Mets fan, the Phillies were the d-bag division rivals whose fans have a propensity to be jerkoffs (generally - and when I say generally, I mean it, I am not trying to brand all Phillies fans as anything, I am merely going on observation.... I will say that at each game there were ALWAYS pockets of fans who were fun, good natured, and decent people); the Yankees were the big-headed boys up the block.  I related it to having to choose to root for the neighborhood bully, or that jerkface cousin down the (Jersey) 'pike who we had to see a few times a year who would always walk up to you and poke you in the eye.  For no reason at all.

I said there was no way I could root for either team in the Series.  There was too much bad blood (like hatred for a bigger, more successful, older family member who you want to throw the turkey at over Thanksgiving dinner) with the Yanks; the Phils were bona fide enemies - no way in hell that was happening.  Short of wishing an asteroid would hit the field and destroy 'em both, there was nothing much I could do but just watch.  And enjoy the game of baseball.

Now, there are those people who say, "you are from New York, you should root for the New York team." No.  I'm sorry.  It doesn't work that way for Mets/Jets/Bills fans or fans of a team in a particular area with more than one regional team in any sport (Chicago, or Florida, or California).  If we want to root for a New York team other than the Mets, we would root for the Dodgers or the Giants before the Yankees (yes, our California defectors are both in the National League, and the Yanks are American League, but you get my point).  You shouldn't dislike a team because of where they are from, and you shouldn't like a team solely because where they are from.  I am from Long Island; I am an Islanders fan.  Just because NYC is the love of my life and I lived in Newark, doesn't mean I should like the Rangers or Devils, respectively, because of their location.

Now, specifically back to the event at hand:

While the Giants have not held on to the "big brother" or "neighborhood bully" title continuously for decades like their baseball kin, I am starting to feel that way.  It only came on this season, really. A bit burned and jealous about my Jets? Sure.  But it was more than that.  At the Christmas Eve game, there were ALOT of nasty hate-filled Giants fan.  One tried to throw down with me as we were leaving the stadium.  Really?  Please.  I sat next to a few Giants fans who I had only met that day - we had fun, ribbed each other for crappy plays, etc. All in good fun - just like when I go to Mets/Yankees games.  But, there was just something DIFFERENT this time around.  

Anyway.  As with the Phillies, there is no way in hell I could root for the Patriots.  They are that jerkface cousin down the (Mass) 'pike who like to spit in your Cheerios just because they can.  Not to mention, they are led by the devil who doesn't own a complete shirt with original sleeves.

And, it is so hard to deal with a team that is not your own, owning your sport in your own backyard.  Heartwrenching.  Something I have gotten used to over these many a years.

So, after all that.  I am merely looking forward to a good football game.  It will be high scoring - 2 QBs playing at their best, playing indoors, a Pats team with a horrible secondary - so I look forward to some fun plays.  I am going to enjoy the game -- I won't high five when a particular team scores (or doesn't).  I will celebrate great plays.  I will enjoy the game of football.