The other day, after I had had the altercation/interaction with Ms. Venice Beach Trash with her sister in the back seat, I had another indirect interaction. Alas, my next-door neighbor teacher got the worst of it. I would have lost it. As it was, she barely held it together, in spite of these Agents of Chaos.

Little Sister Banshee came walking up to class, and immediately, my radar went off. This is a finely-tuned teacher radar; I can detect "not right-ness" up to 20 paces, and something was definitely not right about the situation. LSB had a visitor in tow; I saw the visitor sticker, but the attitudes were aggressively wrong from the very start.

And the look of them, dear God! I suddenly had an epiphany about VBT, Little Sister Banshee, and this visitor: THIS WAS A FAMILY OF TROLLS. Their ancestors had lived under bridges. The females of this clan were pretty enough to assure the continuation of the line, but the brother, oh dear God. He was short, dark, hunched, with a low, malicious cleverness in the too-close-together eyes. He had a uni-brow; he was hairy, and he shuffled. Clearly I was looking at a throwback to former bridge-dwelling ancestors.

I knew something wasn't right, and knew my neighbor teacher, Lucky, would tell me about it after the class was over, and did she have a tale to tell. Apparently, TrollBrother didn't introduce himself as a normal human being would; perhaps normal human modes of conduct and communication escape trolls, or Earthern Americans, as they're probably called nowadays. He just came in and sat, as if he were a student, which he practically was since he was only EIGHTEEN years old. The real question was, why would the family send one teenager to "observe" another teenager? This made no sense from the start. Why couldn't the PARENTS come? Sorry, I know I'm being logical; more than likely, the troll-'rents were busy hoarding and counting their gold, collecting rent from other bridges, and stalking and eating goats.

But what happened in the class was nothing less than disgusting. There's been this completely DUMBASS thing that students do this year, taking people's backpacks and hiding them, just to mess with other people. We have preached, yelled, threatened, manipulated, and given consequences this year, but this group just doesn't get it, thick-headed idiots that they are, to KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF. So Trollbrother was complicit in the backpack hiding, and moreover, he kept making this one girl who was wearing too-short shorts get up and bend over to look for the bag, while he, apparently, kept taking pictures with his phone. Lovely, and just SO appropriate. We have a winner here, folks! I'm betting he'll be registering as a sex offender ANY day now.

So rather than the PARENTS themselves coming, they send Trollbrother as an emissary. Not only does Trollbrother not introduce himself as a normal human being would, he just stands there, or maybe Lucky said he just sat down, clearly not being mature enough to state his business, introduce himself, and be an adult about it; no, he acted like a student. Then he was complicit in causing chaos in the room, just like a child would be, and to top that, he was using his phone VERY inappropriately, while the hapless girl either didn't know what he was doing (this clan is sneaky above all else) or was just SO DELIGHTED that an older boy was interested in her. Dear God, give me strength.

People are just so fucked up sometimes. I can only pray that this troll family has only three children, and that we teachers are done with them after Little Sister Banshee. Good luck, and good riddance.

Early this morning I dreamed I was a Celtic priestess and village elder. I wore the purple robe of an elder. At this point, even in the early morning, my dream is dissipating so I need to get it all down now.

I remember being the keeper of books. Many books had drawings in them, Celtic swirls and knots, all colored brightly. I particularly remember one that had a red rose mandala. Most of the books were commonplace books filled with drawings and writings. I was worried, though, that something was coming to disrupt our way of life, and the paper wouldn't last. I kept saying we needed more permanent books, like calfskin, but other people didn't think so.

Part of the dream took place as it always does on my childhood home down in Jena, where I felt so safe and protected and loved. And yet, the dream also took place in Ireland, or perhaps Scotland. Wherever it was, there was a nemeton of oaks.

Another woman I knew wore green; she was a healer and a doctor. She also loved my drawings and writings and we were very close, even though she was younger. Somehow, the drawings and poetry that I did also corresponded to healing spells and mundane healing recipes, so the books were used often by many people.

One slightly disturbing thing I saw in my dream was an elder male copulating with a deer before he sacrificed it. This was before the time of laws against beastiality, and I witnessed a sacred ceremony in the round house that we all used, I for writing and drawing, the green-robed ones for healing and medicine, and this man, in blue, for death rites, hunting, and sacrifice. It was troubling in many ways, not only because it was a mating of two different species, but that sex and death, the life and death forces, were so close together. After he had mated with then sacrificed the deer, the man in blue cut off its horns, and like Cernunnos, made a hat of the horns and prayed to the spirit of the deer to guide him. None of the deer was wasted, but the priest clad in blue had first rights to any part of the deer, then he gave it to others for food and clothing.

I really want to say that the dream must have been on the mouth of the River Shannon, because at some point in my dream, it seemed like we were overrun, perhaps by Vikings. People were killed, our books destroyed, gold stolen, and the circle torn apart. And yet we rebuilt because the site was holy.

It's been a long time since I had a dream this vivid and meaningful. What a great way to start the day.

It all started innocently enough: I was on a chat site, playing trivia, and one of the answers was "archery". Hey, I thought, archery sounds interesting. Surely here in LA there ought to be places to go to do archery, so I searched, and sure enough, found a place that offered FREE archery! The safety class was a reasonable $25, and after a one-time fee, you could come and shoot for free at various times on the weekend. SCORE!

And at first it was fun, although I got a slightly weird vibe. It wasn't something that I was an immediate success at, but neither did I totally embarrass myself or kill myself or others. I didn't quite know what the weird vibe was because it was very subtle, but then I figured it out after going a few Saturdays: elitism, exclusivity, extreme insularity, cliquishness. Even more than that, if you didn't have top of the line equipment, you weren't one of the cool kids in this club. If you weren't there three or four times a week, shooting an average of 100+ arrows, you weren't hardcore. Oh dear. Dear, dear me. So that's the lay of the land here.

But I had a quandary on my hands: go on weekends and use the free equipment, and take FOREVER to perfect my form and precision, or spend a little money on a make-do bow (which I knew I'd inevitably grow out of) and some arrows and go whenever I wanted to? I opted for the latter, went to a sporting goods store, and bought a youth archery kit for about $50. I contacted a young archery coach in this group, and went today to get her to put a nocking point on the bow, and in general tell me about the bow. I wanted to know if it needed to be tuned -- that's a thing, I learned recently, although I'm still not sure what that involves -- as well as the approximate pull weight and if the arrows and the bow itself was very good.

And she gave me some advice, although it was laced, not with malice, but with the attitude of "Oh ok, this is just a for fun bow, not a really good one. People are going to comment about it, but just ignore them." She said that. It's so typically LA in some ways, and I realize, so typical of sports these days: you gotta have the equipment to be taken seriously. When did this happen? Where's the simple love of the sport?

Immediately, archery aficionados started with the comments: it has no arrow rest! Where's this part? Where's that part? And although they weren't rude about it, I was let to know quite clearly that this was JUST a "for fun" bow. I was let to know clearly that it was CHEAP. And I was let to know, again, not rudely but by clear implication that my equipment, and I, simply didn't rate. I felt quite immediately judged as a dilettante, a weekender, possibly as just a middle aged lady who fooled around with archery. I had a cheap longbow, not an official, approved Olympic-style recurve bow. Oh. I see. Okay. If I wanted to be "in" I would have to change my schedule, make archery a top priority, become hardcore, and really get into it with a money and time investment. I do not think so. This is very much an additional hobby, not, by far, a main one.

So color me frustrated and disappointed. I belong to a weird intersection of academics and physical culture, and there are times when the two clash and, more often, simple stare at each other in incomprehension. This is what I felt today: that no one in this clique shared my outlook and values about archery, that they took it, to me, way too seriously, and were far too consumeristic about it. It wasn't about camaraderie, or perfecting one's form, or getting outdoors and enjoying nice weather and nice company. It was about who had the best STUFF, as well, in typical LA fashion, who shot the best and who looked the best. Fucking spare me. I felt judged, looked down upon because I had a cheap practice bow. No one even spoke to me or looked at me. I was not remotely excluded, but only passively welcomed. I don't need this shit. I have no one to impress, but simple courtesy and acknowledgement of my presence would have been nice.

Even the coach didn't really seem to comprehend my frustration when I told her that I knew how to fire a bow, but was frustrated because now I knew how much I didn't know, and I knew how long it would take me to reach proficiency. She just wasn't all that empathetic, or rather, she tried, but her youth and her own proficiency kept her from really seeing things from a different point of view. That inability to empathize with a client who is a beginner is not a good trait for a coach. Personally, I've encountered this particular frustration before, when I've learned how to do something but realized there was much, MUCH fine-tuning to be really good at something, and I knew all the hours and days and weeks and months and years that would need to be invested to reach proficient and advanced levels. I just didn't feel like she understood that beginner's frustration at all. It was as if I was speaking plain English, and she just stared at me in emotional incomprehension. Weird.

All in all, I like the idea of archery and intend to keep doing it -- on my own time, and specifically when members of this elite and elitist cadre aren't around. Fortunately there's an online calendar, and a couple of times a week, there are no scheduled shoots. I'd rather go there by myself (or nearly alone; I'm sure other people shoot at off hours), and just shoot, practice my form, find what works for me, take my time, have some elbow room, and be very off in my own head, because the constant social chatter is an annoying distraction. The quiet but insistent judgment is a huge distraction. I want to find what works for me without being judged or looked down upon. And mostly I just want to be outdoors, doing something physical that's also deeply meditative. That for me encapsulates the purity of the sport, minus all the commercial trappings.

I also don't mind spending about $200 to get a good recurve bow and some good arrows; having shot today with the cheap longbow versus the range's equipment, I do see what a difference good equipment can make. And overall, $200 for sports equipment is a very small investment. But that's for later on, maybe summertime or even later in the year. I specifically want to go to a place in Louisiana in my hometown that's a shooting range, and see how different the vibe is. I would hope it's a lot different, and more in tune with my own values, the things I listed earlier.

Overall, I don't think I'll be going back for Saturday and Sunday open shoots very much. I may go back a few more times and try different bows and as one older, more experienced female archer said, see what I like and see what works for me before I buy. That makes sense. And I'll simply tuen out the social chatter, realize that I'm a newbie with no rank, and that these people have a hierarchy and ranking system that isn't particularly welcoming to anyone who is a casual archer and who isn't hardcore. So just let me do the sport, and spare me the elitism.

This past Thursday, I let the karmic hammer down. Hard.

For the past several days, I had had a slight premonition, more like a tingling of serendipity, that I would run into a former student. She was FUCKING AWFUL. Extremely bright, she was a total underachiever with a mouth that spewed curse words, invective, hatred, insults, and ANGER.

Flashback five years ago: I transferred to the school I'm at now, just a couple of miles from home. The interim substitute had done me no favors by giving extremely easy work and showing a movie every Friday. Enter me, Protestant Work Ethic firmly in tow, and all of a sudden, students had to think, and write, and produce. I was not popular my first half-year at my school, and they could bloody well suck it up and deal with having to do REAL work for a change.

For two classes that year, I had this girl, who I'll just call Ms. Venice Beach Trash, or VBT for short. VBT was a total piece of work: always immaculately turned out, she had a real flair for style, which I very much admired. But she was an angry little girl, and at the time, I had my own set of issues, namely settling into a new school, learning the lay of the land, learning kids' names, making sure they were as prepared as possible for state testing, and although I didn't know it then, being undermined by Prima Donna SourKraut, not to mention also dealing with losing weight, eating right, and battling occasional bouts of nausea from one particular medication. I had QUITE enough on my plate at the time.

That year, VBT made sexually harassing comments toward me, made comments about my weight, took apart her pens and blew ink on the floor, and a few times, got down on her hands and knees and crawled out the door in order to ditch class. Such a lovely, tractable child. Parents, of course, were never to be seen at parent conferences (fall or spring) or at Open House, and were, of course, impossible to reach by phone. VBT was feral. And mostly, I just ignored her comments, kept piling on the work, and failed her when she chose to fail. And yet, when scores came back the next year, she actually tested proficient. Talk about an underachiever.

Cut to this past Thursday. I had just had a helluva time controlling and corralling a rowdy, increasingly lazy sixth period which didn't want simply to sit still and read/listen to a novel, which I had clearly mistakenly assumed would be easy and pleasant after state testing, but which insisted on turning around, fidgeting, whispering constantly, and doing anything and everything to avoid comprehending what was going on. They were insistent about expressing their passive-aggressive hostility toward reading anything longer than a few pages, which, as it turns out, even though quite a few have claimed to have read the novel, they only half-remembered some of the chapters, relying almost entirely on the movie to fill in any gaps. Details, exposition, characterization: of no interest whatsoever. JUST GIVE 'EM ACTION, LOTS OF ACTION! And conversations, ugh, so boring! I was also tired because I also had to stay late for one of our last school functions, so it was a 7am to 7pm day. I was running on fumes, and still had a few hours left to go.

Who should drive up beside me in a Cadillac but VBT and her little sister, a long-haired, foul-mouthed banshee also who is in 8th grade this year, who regularly comes in screaming and kicking to my next-door neighbor teacher's room. I'm so glad I don't have little sister banshee. I'm so, so, so grateful.

So, bright-eyed and smiling, VBT calls out, "Hi, Ms. A! Remember ME?"

"Yeah," I say, flatly. I was done right then.

"How are you doing?" she persisted, smiling brightly, trying her best to look dewy-eyed, fresh, and innocently young.

How am I doing? I thought. How am I doing? A FUCKING HELL OF A LOT BETTER SINCE YOUR SORRY ASS LEFT MY CLASSROOM, THAT'S WHAT, YOU LITTLE SHIT, I thought. And then I let loose. I can't quite recall what I said, but I do know I said, quite clearly, "You're WELCOME. I PUT UP with you."

"What?" she said, clearly taken aback.

"I PUT UP WITH YOU!" I realized that soon the light would change and we'd have to move.

"Oh my God... what?" Her eyebrows were hitting the car roof. Clearly she expected warmth, friendliness, positivity. Instead, she got (almost all of) what she deserved.

"I put up with you. For all the bullshit comments you made about me, all the stunts you pulled, all the attitude you gave me, YOU ARE WELCOME. I PUT UP WITH YOU. You are SO DAMN LUCKY it was illegal for teachers to slap students, or I'd have slapped your face off. YOU. ARE. WELCOME."

At that point, cars were starting to move. I turned away and drove up. She drove past me, and turned. I felt a great weight off my shoulders, a weight I suddenly realized I had been carrying for five years.

Teachers remember. Teachers are human. We have feelings. And what she did came back to bite her in the ass. She was a nasty, feral child with zero home-raising and breeders for parents. Had she approached me differently, in humility, with an apology about being so difficult to put up with, I'd have forgiven her in an instant, and smiled back. That would have shown true remorse, as well as self-insight. But no: to approach me as if nothing had ever happened, and to expect positive strokes when she had acted like that? LET THAT HAMMER DOWN, baby.

More than once I've heard this comment. A few weeks ago, a young man who works at the gym I attend made this comment, not directed at me, but it resonated and reverberated and triggered me, so much so that I'm still thinking about it weeks later.

What's up with this comment? There's a lot lurking beneath the surface. First of all, it's a very GENDERED comment, one made exclusively by males to and about females.

When I first heard this comment online, the first thing that struck me was, why on earth would anyone want to TRY to make someone else cry? What's the point? It just seems so pointlessly immature, mean, and stupid. But then the more I heard the comment, the more I realized that was the point. The point was to be mean. The point was to be immature. The point was to be stupid.

Invariably, the comment came from disempowered males who, for whatever reason, felt particularly powerless in childhood, and still felt powerless as "adult" males. I use "adult" in quotation marks deliberately: these males I talked to were chronologically mature, but emotionally and mentally extremely immature; in fact, some of them were stuck in perpetual emotional/mental adolescence. I suppose if someone were a disempowered young male who had learned or was taught to fear anyone in authority, and to mistrust women, then the only so-called "power" one might have is the ability to resist knowledge and remain stupid. And that's amazingly passive-aggressively hostile, not to mention self-defeating. One would hope, of course, that a person might realize just how stupid such thoughts and actions are, and with a tiny bit of self-awareness, maturity, and wisdom, WANT to learn in order to better oneself.

The comment's genesis, though, made me wonder about what kind of family life these men grew up in. It would seem to have been a household, indeed a world-view, where women were devalued, seen as objects, and that any powerful, educated woman was seen as an anomaly. And this, of course, is a sad, sick, sexist world-view that cannot die out quickly enough.

Honestly, I doubt any of these mere children ever made an adult female cry. It strikes me that these males, when they claim to have made a woman, a person in authority cry, are saying indirectly that they exerted power over an authority figure. Where does the motivation for that come from? Do they or did they feel so disempowered that they wanted to be mean, ugly, hateful, vengeful on a teacher, someone whose job it is to help people, and to bring them up out of ignorance? How pathetic.

On analyzing this, I feel profound pity and sympathy toward these disempowered males. I wonder if they ever felt any empowerment from childhood on. I wonder who or what in their lives made them fear allying with authority for their own good and edification. I wonder how many were brought up in sexist, chauvinist households.

The next time I hear this, and I'm sure, alas, that there will be a next time, I think I might say, "I'm sorry you felt so out of control" or perhaps "I'm sorry you felt so powerless". Or perhaps even, "You must have felt a lot of anger." I wonder how they'll respond. It'll be fascinating to find out.

I noticed yesterday that someone had sent me THREE messages on Facebook all within the space of one hour. That's rare. I looked, and I'm sorry I did. I found this. He got in touch with me this morning. I hope I ran him off. Ugh, ugh, ugh.

Why do I have a VERY specific feeling that once I am a widow (God forbid anytime soon), I'll get men clamoring over me? I don't want any part of it! I am married: body, heart, mind, and soul, to one man. I'm content, respected, loved, adored. And because I had one early marriage that did not succeed, but from which I learned a helluva lot, and now one extremely happy marriage filled with love, communication, respect, and everything one could possibly hope for, I am DONE with marriage. It's been good; it's good now; it will always be good, because my husband is who and what he is. And after my husband is gone, I do believe I'll be QUITE content to have my own place, a yard and/or garden, books, pets, internet connection, and LIVE ALONE. Maybe, one of these years after he's gone, I might have companionship, but we'd both have our own houses. NEVER again will I share space! And yet... this. Over and over again, this. Sigh.

In a nutshell, they are all the same, not one of them different. The message is, "You are good looking. I desire you. I also happen to need a housekeeper, a step-mother to my child(ren), and a majordomo to schedule my life. You look sweet. How about it? Please consider this thankless, endless, drudgery-filled task that pays nothing, especially in respect or money. BE MINE!" How could one POSSIBLY resist? I'm heartless, I tell you, absolutely heartless.

No. In fact, FUCK no. Fuck no now, and fuck no forevermore. No sharing space, no wedding, no living together, no step-parenting now or ever, no cleaning up for/after a man, no housekeeping unless it's my own, no relationships other than friendship. Friendship I'm cool with. Friendships that involve banter, books, movies, feelings, thoughts, experiences -- those I am all for.

Anyway, here's a recap of the usual ass-hattery:

Letter the first: Hello beautiful lady how are you doing today? I like the little you wrote in your profile, and it makes my heart stop breating, i am
from Sweden but based in the [UK] and I am 49 years old. I am widowed and i will like to know you better if you dont mind,So
hope to hear from you on this soon,i look forward for your reply my lady. Warm love

Letter the second: You make me look at life through new eyes, Eyes that have never seen the light of day,
…Until now. I feel as though I am using all my senses, For the first time, And suddenly everything I once knew, Is now unfamiliar to me.

Letter the third: Hello dear, how are you doing over there, and how was your night? for me it was fine.. thanks for accepting my friend request, I feel so glad and honored to have a beautiful woman like you, i must confess you look so beautiful and charming..Are you an angel? can you tell me the secret of your beauty? I have never seen a beautiful woman like you for a long time, i love the color of your hair and your beautiful nose..You must be an angel my dear. please let me know when you are always on line so we can talk ok. I will be very glad to read from you again my dear.

[I'm not going to caption the rest; it's obvious who is who, especially when you compare native syntax to that of a non-native English speaker.]

hi

hi -- call me Katie... never call me "dear"
DO NOT talk to me "romantically" since you're just some stranger... romantic talk from strangers makes me vomit
BE REAL AND STRAIGHTFORWARD

okay i am sorry
thank you

don't you KNOW THIS already?????

what do you mean?

I mean, don't you KNOW, especially even at YOUR age, how to talk to a woman without turning her off?

i said i am sorry madam

The way you talked to me all "romantically" was a TOTAL TURN OFF because you are just a stranger. It's like you have no clue how to talk to a woman. It's like you are socially clueless.

maybe you are right
so let me tell you about me
this is what you should know about me.. You are such a lovely looking Woman.I will love to be in constant communication with you and tell you everything you got to know about me. I am 49 years of age and a widower.I am a Swedish, but i grew up in Uk i was migrated to UK when i lost my both parents, i lost my wife in an auto crash 4 years ago and i have a lovely daughter called amanda, she is 18 years and study's Law at a University in Scotland. I am an independent man who deals on the supply of cable wires for telecommunication and also for industrial buildings here in Uk and also everywhere in the world, loves working and planning

1) I'm not in CONSTANT communication with ANYONE.
2) I'm married, and fortunately have no kids. FORTUNATELY = never had, never wanted.

why?

3) I absolutely never want to marry again even after my husband is gone.
4) I refuse to be a step-parent EVER. I never wanted kids of my own. I damn sure don't want anyone else's.
5) All this is spelled out on my profile, which you obviously did not read.

i know

I'm married... don't want to marry again.... never wanted kids, will never get involved with someone who has kids

i know i can make a change in your life

HAHAHAHAHHAA
I don't want or need a change in my life
that's FUNNY!

all i want is just a chance

what a good JOKE that is
a chance for what? I'm married. I don't have or want kids. You are one of FOUR THOUSAND PLUS other friends

is not funny okay

funny to me

okay

I don't need or want any so-called "change" in my life, so it's a joke and it's funny

okay i will always be thinkking about you

WHATEVER
I won't think about you because you are a stranger

okay
okay

NO romantic talk... I will shoot it down EVERY time

it cool by me

bye, have a nice life... somewhere else

Another infographic about choice; another round of interminably off-topic rants, ramblings and rumblings. Finally I simply had to close that particular thread and wish them all well. Names have been changed to protect the innocent, the guilty, the witless, the fatally confused, and the permanently dim.

The infographic shows a male saying, "Yeah, if you could go ahead and let me make your birth control decisions... that'd be great." Then a link that says, "Don't let this happen. Take a stand now."

I posted this: I'm sharing this again. Contact your Congress person to show your support that a woman's body is her own, and no one gets to make decisions except her! I cannot imagine having a boss make decisions on anything so personal as birth control. A boss/employee relationship is one of unequal power, and no work relationship should ever encroach on personal decisions and personal freedom!

Bosses are trying to make decisions about birth control for you. Let everyone know you won't stand for it - donate your status NOW: http://bit.ly/XBxS7b (liked by three people)

Me: And for a couple of friends who shall remain nameless, this isn't about asthma medication. It isn't about insurance payments. It isn't about who pays for what. It's about CHOICE. It's about standing up to patriarchy. It's about a woman's right to choose. So yes, I get that you have asthma; I get that you have concerns about the rising cost of medication in general. But it SURE would be nice if THIS TIME you actually GOT THE POINT of this post and didn't argue wayyyyyyyyyyyyy off topic about other irrelevant points!

CD: You have the choice of working for this company or finding a new job. There should always be choice. I get the point . Because I have a different point of view does make it off topic or irrelevant.

Me: Okay, I'll bite. What's your different point of view? You believe the people you work for should be able to make decisions that affect your life, your reproduction, your future?

CD: To cover one type of drug that is not necessary for life is unacceptable. Are you saying that a young woman is any less capable than a young man. I think it is a slap in the face to the women of America. And that is just one problem I have with the law.

CD: To cover the drug 100% with no copay.

Me: Okay, let's take this point by point: the point of this post is that the individual is the only one who should have any say about what happens to her body. Other people, especially a boss, should not have any say. Point one: this type of drug is pretty damn necessary for quality of life for the vast majority of women in the world who want to enjoy sex and who don't want kids right now or possibly ever. True, birth control may not be anything that you need to survive, but to survive economically, to have quality of life where you get to decide the course of your life, then yes -- birth control is extremely necessary. Not having birth control would mean that women give up control, give up choice, give up self-determination and self-actualization to nature or whatever happens. I speak for myself and a lot of other people when I say, I'm a HAPPY little control freak, and that shit (have sex, oh whatever, if pregnancy happens, then la de dah, just deal with it -- DO NOT THINK SO NOW OR EVER) isn't okay by me. I want CONTROL of my life, which means CONTROL of my body. Birth control is necessary for QUALITY of life and CONTROL of one's own destiny.

Me: Point number two: capability of either sex wasn't mentioned. This is off point and off topic.

Me: I truly don't get how this could ever be a "slap in the face" to anyone in America. The slap in the face is letting anyone else OTHER than the individual decide what happens to a woman's body, her life, and her future. The individual decides. Taking back and KEEPING our basic rights to bodily autonomy is absolutely necessary. This is what the whole "keep your laws off my body" idea is about! Contact your Congress person and tell him/her that you support women owning our own bodies! It's my body to decide what to do with, and no one else EVER gets to make that decision for me, because I'm quite capable and wise enough to know what I need, don't need, want or don't want.

Me: And one more thing, C--: no one is saying that this drug is covered under any insurance plan or not; the point is that it's NOT in the control of a boss, and that it's only in the hands of the individual woman. Moreover, what's necessary for your life may not be necessary for someone else's life, and vice versa: what you find unnecessary, someone else may need and want. Better to let the individual make the right decision for him/herself.

TWF: I think katie the point is that the boss, or in our case the school district is not choosing whether or not I get to take birth control. They are choosing on whether or not they want to pay for the 100% coverage of that one medicine. Let's say it is not asthma meds. Let's say it is something else. Some other type of medication. Or if we are going to go with reproductive rights, then why don't we go with the fact that some companies choose to not cover certain types of Reproductive Dr's. There are some women who have certain Reproductive issues, and some companies choose to not cover certain procedures for those women. Why? Because they are optional. They are not life threatening. They are so they can have children with the help of medicine and medical procedures. Birth Control is an optional medication. You can do things naturally to prevent getting pregnant without the use of birth control, or you can use condoms. You can also get birth control without insurance for $5 at Target. To me that is not a lot of money no matter who you are. The point of all this is, is that companies are making choices on what insurance coverage you are getting based on: a) how much it is going to cost them, b) how much they are going to charge you the employee, and c) what they have negotiated with insurance companies. Like Candy said, you don't like what the employer is offering you, find a different employer who offers the insurance you want. What I find offensive, is when I have to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for medications for life threatening drugs because it is not on the approved list of drugs. Which by the way, the employer doesn't make that decision on what drugs costs what, that is the insurance company that makes that decision. Oh and then if if costs the company more for the insurance, which it will if you do 100% coverage then they are passing that cost onto the consumers, how else are they recouping the cost? If you want birth control 100% paid for then how are you going to pay for that cost? Through more taxes? Who are you going to tax? What incentive are you going to give businesses for offering that perscription coverage? What incentives to the insurance companies? to the pharmaceuticals? And then who is going to pay for those incentives? Remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. While agree that a women does have a right to choose if she gets to take the pill, I don't believe that it infringes on that right by not offering her the pill for free, nor do I think that the big bad man is making decisions for her. By the way, I wish that 10 years ago they had told me that being on the pill long term really messes you up, and that I could of done other things to regulate my body. This pill is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, and we are finding out can cause some pretty harmful things to a woman's body taken long term.

EN: I'm far too simple a person for this debate. To me it's pretty much black and white. Companies/corporations make a hell of a lot of money off of YOU and ME. They have tax breaks, tax loopholes, tax credit this and tax credit that. I have no kind words for corporations today.
So don't cover birth control. Not your problem, right? Let that woman get pregnant and have a baby she doesn't want. Let's not be proactive and prevent conflict. Let's leave the status quo the status quo and instead let's all call this woman stupid, loose, and a tramp for not keeping her legs closed. Let's let that life be born before we ruin it. SMDH

TWF: See the argument for 100% coverage of birth control makes it sound like you can't get perscription coverage for it period, which isn't true. I actually can go get it cheaper without insurance at Walmart or Target, than get it through my insurance. There are also other ways to practice birth control without the pill as well, but that is a whole other story as well. She can also get pregnant on the birth control. It happens. Any insurance decision for any medication or meidical decsion is in the hands of the company who decides what insurance to offer, and then if you go with an hmo, your medical decisions are now in the hands of the insurance. Some random person, a random doctor gets to decided if you get the procedure your dr wants to do. I can only imagine the hell I would be in right now if I had kept the HMO instead of going to the PPO. I have a rare disease, what I need is not going to be covered 100%, but I may need it to live, or not to go blind, but because the District decided to go with the more expensive for me of perscription plans (cheaper for them) I have to figure out what bills I pay, and what I don't so I can pay for my meds or procedures. Oh and what may have caused this, they are still doing studies on this at UCLA, is my birth control pill. They think it is one of the culprits of causing extra cerebal spinal fluid in women, and messing with the endocrine system, and in fact may be doing more harm to women with PCOS and than the good they thought it was doing.

EN: *sigh* That's not what I was saying at all. I'm going back to my book, where all the words are on the same page. And have been professionally edited. There's a reason I despise politics.

Me: It's not about coverage or insurance or who pays. It's about CHOICE. It's about BODILY AUTONOMY. I choose what happens to my body; a boss or anyone else doesn't. Now, either you get it, or you're a FUCKING IDIOT. There are no other points to this; every other point is just that, another point about something else, and I'm not tolerating any more off-topic bullshit. Get it or forevermore be deemed mentally deficient and incapable of understanding basic Feminism 101.

TWF: [comment redacted; the damn page wouldn't kill itself so I couldn't reload it, and anyway, it was just more of the same off-topic shit]

Me: Once again... it's not about who pays or how. It's about BODILY AUTONOMY. Yet another off-topic post. Important, but OFF TOPIC.

EN: Incredible. She just refuses to get it. Every other point but the one you've been making, clearly, to everyone else. Bloody freaking hell.

EN: By the way, you need condoms? I get them for free.

Me: Yep, E--, pretty much: every other point except THE point. Yeesh.

Me: LOL! I'm lucky I'm beyond needing birth control, and although it isn't my fight, it's every young woman's fight, including my nieces and great-nieces. I'm all for them making the decisions that are right for them, and about blocking any other person, especially a male and/or a boss, from making extremely personal, private choices FOR them.

TWF: Oh no I get it, I get that you want to able to make that choice, but you seem to think that you didn't have that choice before. I have never been told I can't take birth control, until now for medical reasons. I am also of the mind that abortions should be illegal. That is why we differ, what you don't seem to be capable of is accepting a different opinion.

EN: No, you don't get it. You are so far away from getting it you're spinning clueless somewhere in the Kuiper Belt.

Me: SIGH... Tracy, it's about EVERY woman making the decision that's right FOR HER. It's about preventing bosses from ever deciding anything so personal or so private. That's the bottom line. What is so difficult to comprehend?

PDW: T--, it seems to me that you are the one unable to accept other' s opinions because.....a boss that says you cant take bc or have an abortion is trying to force their opinion on every woman that works for him as long as it is legal it should be HER choice

EN: It's like the outcry over universal healthcare - some uninformed people think all those waste-of-flesh low income people are going to make up illnesses to go sit for hours in an emergency room so they can get health care. Obviously, if employers are fo...See More

Me: Thank you, PDW, for sharing this link and GETTING THE POINT by saying, "only a woman should have control over her own body". BOOM! SHE GETS IT!

TWF: It isn't katie, why? because I have never had an employer say to me, that isn't covered. That you can't get that medicine. The only employers not covering that drug were religious employers, which by the way should be protected by the first amendment. ...See More

Me: SIGH. It's about the bigger picture, Tracy. Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it hasn't happened to others. Clearly it is happening and has happened, else why would there be a link to notify Congress to STOP this? Bigger picture, please!
35 minutes ago · Like

TWF: My argument has never been to not have it covered, my argument has been the 100% coverage. Katie--It is already law. Obamacare has made it law as of I believe last year.

Me: The point is, the individual decides. Bosses don't decide. Once again, nice OTHER point... not on topic. And not the topic of what I posted.

PDW: birth control has always been more costly than the minimum wage..you are like a lot of others trying to blame all the world's problems on Obama....or do you really think if a woman works for minimum wage that she's a whore?

TWF: Women should have access to it, and they should be informed of all side effects, and everything that it can do to them as well. I agree, you should be able to decide what you take and put in your body, but why stop at birth control. Government run health care won't fix that either. They just tell what procedures you can have done and with who.

Me: I don't think minimum wage and a woman's sexuality factor into this. The point I've been making, over and over and over, is that it's all about the individual excercising control of her own life, and no one else having the right to do so. Seems simple enough, one would think...

Me: Why stop at birth control? Because, Tracy, that's all THIS particular post is about. Let's NOT over-generalize (yet again). Let's just agree on THIS post without bring in every other point plus the kitchen sink. The individual decides what to do with her body and other people DO NOT. That's it. Bottom line. Nothing else.

TWF: Katie, I agree no one can tell a woman what to do about birth control. Where we differ is the economics of it. I stop at birth control for that though, but that is my religious belief, and I really don't get into discussions about that. I also wish th...See More

CD: P--, i have survived off of minimum wage. At that income level it is already free. And yes, the issue is freedom. My freedom not to pay for a drug I would never poison my body with. If it is covered by my insurance, I am paying for it?

Me: BINGO we might just have a winner! FINALLY you actually agree with the point! HALLELUJAH! Economics is a DIFFERENT point and a whole OTHER discussion, which I don't want and have not wanted to get into. CHOICE is the point. As for any other discussion, not here, not now. The individual chooses; no one chooses for the individual.

TWF: I always have, I just don't agree with the whole thing. I wanted you to see the other views as well. We often don't hear the other side. I do remember that set of pills found in the church by a dad one time, and he handed them to us, and there was a ve...See More
20 minutes ago · Like

CD: And now my copay goes up because I dont have a choice any more. I have to pay for someone else to receive a free drug.

TWF: Actually C-- yourcopay is going up because you are getting the free drug. It techincally isn't free. They get you on the front end whether you use it or not.

TWF: Just because you are a woman.

Me: Every other point is that: ANOTHER point, and not THIS point. Next time you post to my page, on anything, stick to the point or be deleted. My patience is at an end. I don't particularly care if you agree or disagree, but from now on, if you have thoughts, feelings, points OFF-topic, don't post off-topic or I will delete and will refuse to engage anymore. If this were a target, all my points, EN's points, and PDW's points would be in the bullseye. TWF and CD's points were good, in their way, for what they were, but they were not on point and as such, would have been way off the bullseye, to analogize this comment thread to an archery target. As of this moment, this topic is closed. Thanks for seeing the point, TWF and CD, although I must say, GODDAMN, it took you a fucking hell of a long time to see it, agree with it, and acknowledge the point of the original post, while making every other point there was to make. Oy. SMH. Bless your hearts, honeybunches. Ya need it. PEACE OUT.

On Facebook, I posted an infographic: "Want YOUR boss to make birth control decisions for you? Thought not!" It had a link to contact a Congress person to show support that women should be the only individuals making that choice. The following bit of dumbassery ensued. I'm still shocked that this happened with two women; one of these women I used to work with. Names, as usual, have been changed to protect the guilty, the witless, and the narrow. To wit (or not):

CD: So tell me, why should birth control be 100% covered when i pay almost $200 every month in copays for asthma meds.

Me: I'm not sure I follow. How are you linking birth control and asthma medication? This post specifically talks about the wrongness of an authority figure having any say over women's reproductive rights. It's about not wanting some other person, especially a male in a business relationship of unequal power, to have any right or say over one's reproductive choices. Asthma medication isn't the same thing. This is taking a stand against patriarchy and taking a stand FOR women's autonomy.

CD: Obama care covers birth control 100%. It is a perfect world, right? I have reproductive freedom while I suffocate from a massive asthma attack. Only someone with a political agenda would not see the irony in that.

Me: This seems argumentative, as if no matter what I say, you don't want to see the point. It's obviously not a perfect world, which you already know. Women's reproductive freedom isn't tied to asthma medication. You are missing the point. It'd be nice if you indicated you understood what I'm saying and that you see why this is important. No woman ever needs or wants an authority figure making decisions FOR her.

CD: You miss the point

Me: True, we all have to pay for the things we want. Prices do seem to keep going up, but nothing in life is free. However, the point is, no person in authority ever needs to decide anything for other individuals. That's the point of THAT post.

Me: And with that, I'm done. This is becoming argumentative, and I refuse to argue. You either see the point of the post, or you don't, won't, or can't. As I tell my students, I cannot FORCE you to work, or comprehend, or understand. I can simply open the door and invite you to ask questions so you can learn for yourself. Have a great day.

CD: My point is that reproductive freedom is already there. Yet the freedom to breath is not so free

TWF: I Agree with other person. If you are going to cover that med 100%, why not all my meds. I agree that am employer can't say that the insurance can't not require me to make a copay which it already does for both meds, but why should one be 100% covered while the other not. Which by the way, the asthma med is more life threatening to me if I can't afford it. Most asthma meds aren't even generic, and as you know Katie under our district insurance we pay an arm and a leg for anything non-generic. So an employer saying he doesn't want to pay for insurance that costs more to cover birth control which is 5-10 dollar copay depending on the med, is not taking my reproductive freedom choice away.

Me: Can we just get the point of THIS post without over-generalizing? No woman wants a boss making decisions for any part of her reproductive life. Your other points are other points -- good and worthy of discussion... somewhere else. Let's stick to THIS subject. Our bodies, our rights, our right to privacy. That's the bottom line.

TWF: Right, but just because I am a women doesn't mean I should get special treatment in my perscription insurance. Katie, this post makes it sound like they are going to take away the right to no birth control at all. That isn't true. Giving a med for free is going to cost. Where are you going to get the cost for this? We are lucky as teachers to not hAve to pay as much for insurance, but what about everyone else? There is no such thing as a free lunch. This isn't about reproductive rights. No one is saying you can't have the med, in fact you could walk in to target without insurance and get it for $5. You can't do that for most meds. The la times did a study and found out that the new Obama care law is actually increasing costs in health care. The employers aren't the ones who are going up get stuck with those costs. So any time someone says they want to give me something for free, I know there is an actual cost to it. That is simple economics.

Me: It's about BOSSES not having the right to make decisions for EMPLOYEES. BOTTOM LINE.

TWF: Oh and if I were to take birth control again (the stuff is evil for your body) I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to pay for it. See Katie, that is where you and I differ. I don't see it as them making a decision for me. I see it as them making a business decision. There are a lot of things medically that insurances don't cover that we don't know about. Covering birth control with a copay or 100% is not taking my rights away. Would you say this if they decided they wouldn't cover diabetes medicine anymore? Or medicine or medical coverage for certain conditions? They do this with certain cancer treatments. Employers decide what levels of insurance they want to offer their employees and how much they chip in for their employees. Wether it is female running the business or a male. My husband works for the insurance company, and we get better coverage as teachers. It is all about how your employer offers it to you , and what options they choose, for the pricing.

Me: SIGH. It's not about me paying. It's about YOU MAKING THE DECISION FOR YOUR BODY, not a boss, not anyone else. That's the point. YOU decide. No one else decides.

*************************

Re-reading this, I'm struck by how these people either don't want to get the point or simply cannot grasp the point. One would THINK that this is absolutely Feminism 101, that the individual has the first and last right to decide what happens to our body. I'm not sure how anyone could dispute this, but looking back at these comments, these two women never even come near that argument; their points are different, as if bodily autonomy were the bullseye, and their comments were elsewhere on a target, if one were to picture this materially.

And anyone, especially any female, who actually believes that reproductive freedom is there... oh dear God. She obviously does NOT watch the news or keep up with ALL the abortion clinics closing. It just makes me shake my head.

However, I'm NOT going to look at this post again. It's over and done with. I don't care who else posts. I post a lot, so I hope this simply goes away. That said, though, it annoys me when people don't, can't, or won't get the point. What the hell GIVES? Lack of reading comprehension? a burning desire to make other points even when the original topic is different? a burning desire to comment on anything and everything that remotely triggers them? Who the hell knows.

**************************

Here's another post: same thing. The caption reads: "Greenpeace. Helping stranded whales back out to sea." Two trim, cute, hot, young women are trying to pull a morbidly obese man out of his chair at the beach. Ugh, ugh, ugh. I admit this triggered me. The following ensued:

Me: Sigh. I hate fat jokes. They damn sure don't help obese people change their lifestyle, have dignity, or be motivated to lose weight. Making fun of obese people just makes them/us EVEN MORE intimidated, demotivated, and dispirited. NOT HELPFUL.

RC: I don't think you should speak for every obese person.

Me: I spoke mainly for myself -- obviously. Sorry you completely over-generalized as a way to miss the point. I get it: to you this is funny; you're not sorry you posted it; you don't really care how obese people feel or react.

RC: I'm 5' 8" and have been 280lbs.. your argument is invalid.

Me: OH I GET IT! No matter what I say, you're going to MAKE me wrong, because I thought the original picture was wrong. So now it's "you disapprove of me so I'm going to disapprove of you" and force a standoff. GOT IT.

RC: Overly fat people are funny. That's my opinion. Like it or not.

Me: I'd rather not laugh at people because then someone might laugh at me. Life is easier and better when I treat others how I want to be treated. And if they don't treat me well, then I avoid them, and realize I was the better person for treating them kindly in the first place. Golden rule and such. It's something I try to live by.

*************************

YES, as a matter of fact, I DO hope to SHAME people into being nice. How difficult is it to simply not post something that's hateful, hurtful, demeaning? There are icky, subversive, not-right things I find funny, too -- but I keep it TO MYSELF!

Longtime readers of my blog know that I'm an early articulator when it came to being childfree. I knew intuitively by around age 6 or so that parenting just wasn't going to be something I'd ever really want to do with my life. Then came puberty, teens, then marriage and 20s and 30s where the real pressure started. I'm so glad I just passed it all by.

But this week, I've been reading in Nerdy Feminist and Feministe, all about how NYC has a particularly crappy, shaming poster campaign leveled against teen pregnancy. But really it seems leveled against sexuality overall, against FEMALE teen sexuality in particular, and against teen pregnancy in a blaming, shaming, judgmental sort of way. And as the commentators suggested, this does nothing positive for teens who are parenting already and being made to feel bad about yourself, your sexuality, your choices, and your child's very existence. This does no one any good. Ever.

This post, though, is more personal. It's what I thought myself while growing up, and how I swallowed the anti-pregnancy, anti-sexuality propaganda. Very, very little was ever said to me outright, but WOW did I pick up on social attitudes toward pregnancy, teen pregnancy, sexuality and especially female sexuality: nearly all bad, nearly all the time. And the few instances that sex per se wasn't bad, then it was so hyper-controlled that it was deadened into nothingness. So how much easier just to side-step the whole thing? Just don't have kids. And above all, keep sexuality hidden from everyone else, lest you get caught, get disapproved of, get censured, get punished. Such toxicity. And times have NOT changed that much. Fortunately there is some change, but change cannot happen quickly enough to suit me, now or ever.

Here are some of the slogans that the NYC ad campaign has used, and my responses as a teen and now as an adult:

1. (with crying, sad toddler) "I'm twice as likely not to graduate high school because you had me as a teen." My response then and now: hate the message, feel ambivalence at least to outright dislike of babies and small children in general, feel intense fear of children, intense fear of sex, phobic fear of pregnancy, and feel intense hate, fear, disgust, rage, and shame that I and everyone else was being told this. Bear a kid and you will be a failure and ensure your kid will be a failure. Conclusion: just another brick in the wall of being childfree. Fortunately the older I got, the better off things got for me. Being post-menopausal has given me the complete freedom to like babies and children again, because there is no threat of pregnancy or having to jump all the hurdles of parenthood. And I completely see now how my anger at the overt and covert messages got transferred onto babies and children who are, as always, the innocent victims of society's thoughtless belligerence... and belligerent thoughtlessness.

2. (with cute, chubby-cheeked toddler): "Got a good job? I cost thousands each year." My response was to immediately go into fear and panic mode. What if I can't find a good job? What if I get fired? What if I have to go on public assistance? And on and on and on. Too many questions, too much fear, not nearly enough answers or reassurance. Same conclusion: opt out of having a child; having a child could equate to poverty, destitution, and failure. Make life easier on myself, keep my money, be financially secure by being childfree.

3. (with sad-faced little boy): "Dad, you'll be paying 20 years to support me." And what if they didn't pay? What if I had a kid, and the guy refused to marry me? (I didn't even know that co-parenting sans marriage was even a concept growing up in the South in the 70s and 80s.) What if he didn't pay? How do you deal with a deadbeat dad? The thought of going on public assistance, being poor, impoverished for the rest of my life, and realizing that probably no matter how hard I worked, I could never get out of poverty... NO. Again, better and easier simply not to have a kid.

4. (with a little girl, finger to mouth in "wondering" pose): "Honestly Mom... chances are he WON'T stay with you. What'll happen to me?" What indeed. It's plain shitty to call upon fears of having a child taken into Child Protective Services because you've failed as a parent. Implying that young relationships cannot and do not last, and that a young teen mother (not father, always the mother) simply won't be able to provide, was a huge incentive to be childfree. Coupled with the fact that at 17, I visited one of my step-sister's friends who lived in a trailer park and had a little boy with ADHD. The father was absent and a deadbeat dad; the woman was living close to poverty, and she told a long, rambling story about FORGETTING HOW TO BREATHE during labor and delivery. That day my childfreedom crystallized into rock-solid form. That would NOT be me, now or ever.

What I hated most of all from all this silent propaganda were quite a few other covert, always negative, always toxic messages:
-- sex is bad
-- sex is harmful
-- sex is evil and sinful
-- sex is nearly uncontrollable
-- sex is dangerous
-- sex means social death because once you have a baby you can never have good times with friends again
-- sex for women is bad; sex for men is okay or even good
-- pregnancy for teens means you fail as a person
-- pregnancy for teens means you fail as a woman
-- pregnancy means you fail school
-- pregnancy means you wind up poor and ignorant
-- teen pregnancy means no job and zero career path
-- pregnancy means an interruption to life
-- pregnancy is always a trap
-- pregnancy is different/other/bad/alien
-- children are a burden
-- children are unwelcome
-- relationships are always iffy for young people
-- relationships for young people are never stable
-- relationships for young people will never last
-- relationships for young people aren't real or valid

I could go on and on and on. I knew growing up that what I was absorbing wasn't right, good, kind, caring, or healthy, but that's where feminism comes in. It gives one a lens through which to look back at life and deconstruct and analyze toxic images, messages, and social programming, the better to detangle it from our lives and pass on a better message for other young women and girls. I will say also that I consider myself incredibly lucky to have always had a very responsive, healthy sexuality. I was never molested or abused; I was taught and had no trouble enforcing boundaries on my own. I also knew what felt good and right. And always, always, always, I have been gifted with an extraordinarily sensitive bullshit radar about society and people. So yes, the social messages fucked with my head and psyche, but my inner being was unharmed. In 20th and 21st century America, that's something. But it could be SO MUCH healthier in SO many ways.

Overall, such messages seem to come from millenia-long hate and distrust of both sex and women; together, it makes one toxic, hateful stew. I hope these awful, abusive posters come down soon. Surely there's a better way to deal with teen pregnancy than shame and blame. Want fewer teen pregnancies and unplanned pregnancies? Then parents, overcome your own squeamishness and awkwardness about sex and talk to your children openly and honestly and age-appropriately. Vote in local elections to fund sex ed in schools. Serve on school boards to oversee and implement health education and sex education that goes FAR beyond abstinence only which does not work. Realize that abstinence only withholds basic facts and actually increases teen/unexpected pregnancy.

Having information enables people to make better decisions. Withholding information keeps people poor, ignorant, enslaved. Don't make pregnancy and parenthood equal to slavery. I grew up thinking it was just that, and fortunately I didn't want a child. I can't imagine wanting a child and yet hearing these messages. Wow. Just wow.

First of all, let's start with hormones, because that's what's primarily affected in menopause. My body is producing much less estrogen, and to be honest, it feels like I went downhill on a 90-degree rollercoaster, or fell off a cliff, it was THAT sudden. From around age 14 or 15, the estrogen started kicking in big-time, although it started officially when I was only nine years old becuase that's when I went through menarche and got my first period.

For over 20 years, I lived a normal life of having sexual urges. Now, twinges, maybe, and not really so much of those. It's weird, but it's not uncomfortable. I knew I would not at all miss my period; I knew from age nine that although it wasn't a "curse" or anything stupid like that, just part of the natural cycle of things being female, it was a nuisance: bloody, messy, somewhat irregular, a bit unpredictable. I knew even as a pre-teen that I would NOT miss my period, and even then as a child looked forward to menopause. And now, that time has come. I feel just as normal now as when I was eight, before I went through puberty, except now I feel like myself. I know myself; I understand so much more about myself, life, people in general, and the way the world works. And I have to say, it's pretty awesome.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Menopause is so much more. It's a whole set of attitudes and it truly is the change of life. I have a theory about life. I read somewhere once that you can only ever imagine yourself in the future at double your age; beyond that, your mind can't fathom the difference. It explains a lot of why children and teens don't have much perspective or objectivity; they're developing it; they don't have the life experience, and they can only imagine themselves into their teens, 20s, or 30s. Now, however, I can imagine myself as one of the "old-old" or how my life might be at 90.

But to age as a woman means entering at least three, possibly four different countries. There is the first country of infancy and childhood. But it seems just when that country is getting comfortable and familiar, you are ushered in an instant through the portal of puberty, ready or not, like it or not, with support or not. Suddenly, overnight, you are a biological woman, able to become pregnant, have children, and be a mother -- ready or not, like it or not, with support or not. And I must say, I was never ready, I knew it was not something I'd like, and I knew I did not have the support I'd need to do a good job of parenting, and I'm extraordinarily glad I got to miss it by choice.

Overall, I'd say that this second country, womanhood, was where most of my problems were. This country, menopause, feels comfortable and companionable. Womanhood meant possibly taking on a role that I wasn't ready for, had no interest in, had no vocation for, and was pushed on me by an indifferent, uncaring, shallow, fetishizing society. I am so grateful that as I was growing up, and just at the time when social pressure came to bear on me to have kids, the internet was around, and I had access to it and thus to childfree groups, which saved my sanity (I'm NOT joking and that's NOT hyperbole).

Womanhood was/is also difficult terrain because of the ingrained, centuries-old misogyny that exists in the world. So of course, obviously I became and remain a feminist. I am a human first, my personality second, and my gender always last. Thanks to a quick wit and a sharp tongue, I never experienced much overt misogyny, but some covert misogyny. If anything, though, experiences throughout my entire life have taught me that how someone else treats me is a reflection of how they see themselves. So those women who are competitive with other women operate out of a scarcity mentality; I, on the other hand, see the world in terms of generosity. Those men who see me first and/or only as a woman operate with a sexist framework; there's no need of such a person in my life.

And then there was religion. I was raised Southern Baptist in Louisiana, and I spent decades sorting out, detangling, untying, and unknotting various wrongheaded, misogynistic, antiquated, patriarchal ideas about sexuality, womanhood, manhood, and personhood from what I learned overtly and covertly. Although I appreciate the moral and ethical grounding I received, some of the other messages about sexuality and a woman's place in the home and in the world were simply wrong. I'm glad I overcame that and grew out of it. I have a deep-seated mistrust of all things relating to organized religion, because women are routinely cast as helpmates, auxiliaries, and second-class citizens, when, in fact, we are primal and equal.

I'm not sure if the lessening of estrogen has directly affected my ambition, but I've certainly changed. When I was a young woman, I was extremely ambitious, and was always looking for the next better job or better location. That has changed. Yes, I'm angling for the next stage in my career, which is to become a counselor, but it's a different type of angling. I'm scaling back. I'm working smarter, not harder. I've given over 20 years in the classroom, and although I need to finish out my years in this area with this particular school district, in order to get a good pension, I'm not interested in going further. I have no desire to be a principal or administrator, although the money (paycheck now and pension later) would be good.

And I fantasize, oh how I fantasize! -- about having "just a job". My sister and brother are recently retired; she is working retail, close to her house, within walking distance. I envy her in the best possible way. And I want that for myself. I have nothing to prove to anyone; I have no desire anymore for prestige or status. Working a job minus teenagers, lesson planning, constant copying, parent conferences -- ideal. Simply ideal. Go in, do the job, leave. It sounds like a dream.

As I said, I'm done with trying to impress anyone. I have nothing to prove to anyone. I figure these days if someone wants to see me through a particular lens, they will. They can live with their stereotypes. When I was younger, I had an urgent need to prove to other people just how interesting and intelligent I was and that was appropriate for teens, 20s, and even 30s. It's the time of life when you are building yourself, accuring age, experience in life, education, work experience. Now for the rest of my life, it's a time of letting go and casting off. I figure now if someone wants to know me, they will make the effort by asking questions, listening, and hearing what I have to say. I don't need to scream, shout, do a dance, hog the spotlight, or exert myself.

I know also that menopause brings its own set of health issues, but I feel like I'm ahead of the game. Yes, I'm still diabetic, but trying nearly every day to get out and walk and exercise. I took utterly for granted my ability to sleep, and now, suddenly, I'm unable to stay asleep most of the night, so I want a mild sleeping pill to help me sleep just four more hours. Fortunately my sister recommended something. I know I have less estrogen which acts as a heart protector, so I have to be sure and get enough sleep, eat the right foods, and watch for any signs of a heart attack. In women, first heart attacks can often be final heart attacks. And since my late mother died of an aneurysm and my father has one, I and my siblings need to be on the lookout for that. The only good thing I can say about being overweight is, I probably won't ever have to worry about osteoporosis, since every step as an overweight person builds bone and muscle. I'm pretty sure my bones are solid from bearing all the weight over the last 40+ years.

In the future, I can see living a life much like my sister: having my own house, cats, a garden, a job, hobbies, interests. I can see doing a lot more traveling as I'm able, but I'm not sure how I could travel and have cats, so I suppose that's a wrinkle that I'll have to work out when the time comes. What I do know now is the time has come for me to be truly myself, without any expectations or roles, and it's vastly freeing.