Having an abortion is not killing babies, or claiming babies don’t have a right to exist, or even preventing a woman from having babies in the future. It is, however, saying, “No, I’m not ready for this. I have life plans that a child does not factor into at this time, and it would be irresponsible of me to bring an unwanted child into this world.” Or maybe not. There are many reasons, and they are personal. However, it is a woman making a decision, which is many times very difficult for her, and choosing what is right for her.

The theocratic government (because that is what this country is becoming) seems to think that women are incubators, and obviously should feel privileged to carry a baby to term. Women should feel privileged to have a parasite reside in their body for approximately nine months, quite literally sucking the life out of them. We should feel privileged, even if we did not want this. Even if we would make terrible mothers. Even if we would be ruining our lives in the process. We are expected to sacrifice ourselves for the parasite inside of us, with no regard for the good of ourselves, or the good of society.

“Trust Women.” It seems that there are many people who don’t seem to trust women. George Tiller got it – women can be trusted to make the right decisions about their lives. Women know what’s best for themselves just as men know what’s best for themselves. Clearly, the patriarchal Republican  does not get it. Clearly, they think their own religious values, not necessarily shared by other people, trump any sort of right to become productive members of society.

To put it in terms that they might understand: It is more cost-efficient to let a woman get a $500 abortion (which you currently won’t fund), then to bring an unwanted child into this world, pay for their health care, food (via SNAP or WIC), education (because public school isn’t actually free), and housing (via section should the parent(s) be unable to find a job, given that they now have this thing to find daycare for; to pay for their foster care if the parent(s) decide they really don’t want the child, and to pay for the potential jail time given that most individuals who end up in the aforementioned situations are of lower income, and thus, more likely to be thrown in jail for whatever crime they commit. Especially if that lower income family, in whatever form it takes, are people of color.

Then, there is the approach that is tantamount to slut-shaming : “Well, if you don’t want to have kids, keep your legs closed.” Guess what! That is utter bullshit. What I do behind closed doors is none. of. your. business. And my repercussions of what I do in the bedroom, and my reaction to that? Also, none of your business. It runs along the same lines as “The bitch had it coming,” and “Clearly she wanted it, look how she was dressed.” No, a woman did not want it, regardless of how she was dressed. No, a woman did not “have it coming”, regardless what you, frequently a male, decided.

But it’s frightening to let women have control over their reproductive system and their sexuality. Because it flies in the face of the Abrahamic religions. It means women DON’T. NEED. MEN. It means women can treat men the way that men have treated women for nearly ever. It means women can finally – FINALLY! – have a chance to be seen as equals, because they do not have additional baggage holding them down. It’s one less excuse for men to use to penalize women for not being men – “Well, all the FMLA time off means she just didn’t have time to develop her skills and move up the corporate ladder.”

A favorite quote from the anti-choice brigade: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” (Jeremiah 1:5) What is omitted here is that the imaginary sky poppa was talking specifically to Jeremiah. The verse continues, saying, “Before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Since we haven’t all been appointed prophets, I’m not sure what they’re getting at by using this verse.

Incidentally, this easily slips into the quote by Epicurus: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” If God were so aware of the fetus, and seems to know everything, he would know that this fetus will not be birthed. By logic, he would not imbue a soul into something that will not exist, would he? Or, if he were to do so, wouldn’t the thing-not-yet-a-baby immediately go to heaven, as sinless and blameless?

If you’re pro-life, consider the life that a woman gives up. A life that could actually make her a productive member of society.

Also, I still maintain: If men were the ones incubating the fetuses and giving birth, this would be a completely null argument.

What’s more important? A real live human with hopes and dreams, or a potential human with no consciousness.

Very brief synopsis of events: Jen at BlagHag had a guest post by women who were offended at an Atheist convention about the way a woman was treated, because she vocalized her dissatisfaction with the verbiage being used. Kudos to her for standing up and saying something, I say. This led to a post at Friendly Atheist about it, and, I’m sure, countless other places, which proceeded to dismiss the woman as overreacting, and a whole lotta mansplaining going on to justify the panels abhorrent response to her concerns.

Fukke. That.

It’s like taking the entirely of Derailing for Dummies, and using it as a guide. Of things to do. When the point is you shouldn’t.

“Well, that woman was overreacting.”

“The guest posters need to apologize for possibly implicating a dude did something wrong. He didn’t.”

“I’m a woman, and I wasn’t offended, so no woman anywhere should be offended.”

And so on.

If you are a man – white, black, purple with green spots – shut the fukke up and LISTEN! when a person of another gender identification says there’s a problem with the way they’re being treated. Whether or not you agree with it. Whether or not you understand it. Reach down into the depths of that wee little dried shriveled heart of yours and take just one moment to think that maybe, as a person, that person might have a reason besides being “too sensitive” for having their experience and their concern and their offense. You don’t live the experience. Yeah, you’ve probably had things to overcome in your life – big. fukking. deal. Believe it or not, it’s not about you. It’s about zyr.

And really, that goes for everyone. If a minority of any sort has something to say, listen to zym. Don’t tone police, don’t minimize the fukking problem – LISTEN. Not only might you learn someone, it’ll show that you have actually considered the results of your reaction and how it affects other people, and generally makes you out to be a helluva lot less of a douchenozzle than you really are.

I follow a lot of science blogs. One of my favorite sites is Scientopia. The conversational tone, the representation of women, and the fresh conglomerate (spawned by exodus-ing bloggers after the ScienceBlogs PepsiGate fiasco) and fresh voices make it a comfortable place to learn. There are open minds, genuinely interested in changing the status quo. DrugMonkey pops into mind first and foremost as an ally to feminism – his most recent post about being “that guy” warms the cockles of my wee little heart. There need to be more men, especially white men, aware of their privilege and willing to be “that guy” in their departments (or their board rooms, for that matter) to actually move equality forward. Without concessions by the privileged class, and acknowledgement of that privilege, we less-advantaged folk are going to be beating our heads into a wall a little harder. Thanks for providing a bit of a cushion, thatguy. You’re appreciated.

Scientopia’s writers give me some real views. It’s fucking hard being a scientist! Especially one with a vagina! Or darker skin pigmentation! Especially in academia! We have Female Science Professor and Female Computer Scientist (because being a female is just. that. unusual. notably in computer science), and various other female bloggers with non-gender-specific titles. They talk about the realities of the shite they have to deal with, being a woman in science – thehermitage just talked about The Academia Ghetto and the condescension she experiences with where the funding comes from – take moneys specifically targeted at women, and suddenly it’s a mark of shame instead of a mark of honor. This shite runs rampant. And reading about the trials, tribulations, and changes people experience, and changes people are trying to make, gives me hope for the future. Just a little, but it’s more than I had before.

[Tangentially, this very issue is a big part of the reason I'm hoping to go into junior academia - that is, high school math. If I can encourage youngsters - especially young women - in getting interested in science and math, and actually pursuing it at a college level, I'll feel like I've made a good mark upon this earth.]

So I get my expectations set to a certain level. I expect a relatively enlightened atmosphere in the blogs I read; the skeptic circles overlap with the science circles overlap with the feminist circles. Good times are generally had.

But every so rare often, I’m let down.

Quoting from a blog post at my beloved Scientopia, a cranky dood writes:

. . . If you can’t lead the meeting or know when to cut people off to get back on track, you need to nut up and grow a fucking pair Sally and learn how to be a leader. . . .

So why isn’t Sally a leader? Is it because she isn’t living up to your expectations of what a leader is – rude, willing to cut people off, and abrasive? Or, instead, is it because she’s got an innie instead of an outie between her legs?

Or, in fact, is this a dude you’re referring to, and by calling them by a feminine name, you’re implying that they’re less?

Either way, the sexist language? Not becoming. Are you aware of how ignorant you sound? If you’re not, I’m not sure if that’s any better. In fact, I’d almost say that’s worse.

I guess it’s just evidence of how far we have yet to go.

“I don’t mean to be rude, but…”

“No offense, but…”

“Not to be mean, but…”

“I mean no disrespect, but…”

or really any sort of

“Qualifyingstatementhere, but…”

STOP. Really, I mean it. Stop. Don’t finish that sentence. Because you sound like an ass. Really. If you have to stop and qualify what you’re about to say, think for just one second about how you would feel if it were being said to you.

If you’re totally okay with sounding like a complete asshat, go ahead. Continue. But drop the disclaimer; it’s really just pointing out what a tool you’re going about to be.

Oh, and special attention should be paid to

“I’m sorry, but…”

and

“I’m sorry you were offended, but…”

if this is an apology. That is not an apology. If you are qualifying your apology with something like “I’m sorry but you’re wrong,” You’re not sorry. You’re sounding condescending. If you’re qualifying your apology with “I’m sorry you were offended, but…” you’re not actually sorry about what you did at all. Even if you think you’re in the right. Even if you think offering a hollow apology is better than nothing. Guess what? It’s not. Because you’re not acknowledging anything that you may have done to cause pain to another person, and you’re not accepting that your actions have consequences.

Happy New Year, all!

Back in February, Chile had an earthquake. It killed over 500 people, and injured a whole lot more; lives were ruined. Our aid – and the aid of the rest of the world, came as quickly as it had for Haiti. Newspapers covered it. We were aware.

In July, Pakistan was hit by massive flooding. Close to 2000 people died, and at one point 20% of the country was under water. The news outlets in the US reported briefly on it… and the US population ignored it.

Today, Japan had an earthquake. It had a magnitude of 7.2, but no fatalities and little damage. It was on the website of Portland’s biggest paper, The Oregonian. We are aware.

Today, Iran had an earthquake. It had a magnitude of 6.5, and killed at least 7 people. It destroyed several villages and ruined lives. Americans – at least Portlanders – ignored it. It looks like the Washington Post and LA Times may have picked it up. But by and far… we ignored it.

I’m not going to tirade about what this says about our country, or its inhabitants. I’m not going to go on about our lack of awareness in the world around us. Because that’s obvious.

I just want to ask you, my reader: why?

Yes, data can be manipulated, changing the statistical outcome. Yes, the statistical outcome can be reframed to the biases of the user. But the statistical process itself is undeniable. Input goes in, action performed, input goes out. Quantitative data is solid, and less open to interpretation, whereas qualitative data leaves plenty of squish room.

Is it no wonder I’ve become a math major?

One of the basic concepts in statistics is that of the null hypothesis. Wikipedia says that “The null hypothesis typically proposes a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or that a potential treatment has no effect.” When a researcher wants to do research, they’ll determine what it is that they want to measure, and put it in the form of Null Hypothesis/Alternative Hypothesis. For example:

H0: The daily use of aspirin in older adults has no impact on heart attack and stroke.

Ha: Daily aspirin use decreases the chances for  heart and stroke in older adults.

The medical researchers developed their hypothesis based on trends they had noticed across their patients, and thought there might be something to it. They stated their null and alternate hypotheses, and then performed their research. The evidence they found supported their alternate hypothesis, and they did a whole lot more research to figure out dosing, appropriate age, and all of the other details that needed to be sussed out about the aspirin therapy.

An important thing to remember is that in statistical research, the idea is NOT to disprove the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis exists because it is the skeptical perspective. The alternative hypothesis is the idea we want to provide evidence to support. It’s the new idea. You need to provide enough data to show statistical probability that the alternate hypothesis is more true than the null.

So. Let’s look at atheism. A-, meaning not, or without. Theist – belief in a god or gods. So, atheism literally means without belief in a god or gods. It is the null hypothesis. If you’re trying to tell me that god exists (whichever flavor of god you’re professing), you need to provide statistical evidence that your god exists. Something that can’t be attributed to random chance. Something repeatable – if I go perform my own analysis using the exact same methods, I will reach the same statistical conclusion.

I realize that the null hypothesis is a function of statistical analysis, and doesn’t work for quantitative data. But that’s sort of the point, yeah? If someone makes a proclamation that GOD EXISTS! it needs to be solidly evaluated. For example, I can do a simple test about gravity. My simple test could be: I drop a ball from five feet , it falls to earth. I drop a ball 10,000 times from five feet, it falls to earth. I have developed evidence that a ball will probably fall to earth if I were to do it again a 10,001st time. At this point, I have a Theory. It’s called a theory because it is possible, on that 10,001st drop, that the ball goes sailing into the air and hits my husband in the head. But it’s highly unlikely. Still, I’m open to the idea that I could be wrong.

The same goes for atheism. I’m open to the idea that I could be wrong. I’m open to the idea that someone could come along and provide data to prove the existence of god, and to have it displace my current lack of belief in a god or gods. I guess you could call it my Theory of Atheism.