I have to admit, I have a conspiracy theory about the recent media attention of female teachers sleeping with their students:

I think it is a reaction to the strength of teachers' unions and the perceived feminization of education.

Surely women of any number of occupations molest and, yes, rape young men. So why focus only on teachers? Yes, theirs is an occupation we often associate with higher morals, including honoring children. But we also associate honoring children as a family responsiblity, and we know all too well how often that works out. But familial abuse isn't getting the media attention in the same way these teachers are. So I ask, why teachers and why now?

Because teachers' unions are strong democratic constituencies. And if the media can, bit by bit, erode the credibility of teachers, all the better. How many times are democrats going to be branded with the loose morality that conservatives want to paint them as? All you have to do is turn on cable news to see who eats this shit up: Bill O'Reilly. Hmmmm.....coincidence?

And with the recent increases of young women pursuing higher education, school is perceived as anti-male and stories like this just help bolster that image. Does that mean that we shouldn't worry about how our young men are doing in education? No way. But I am highly suspicious that cable news shows (and now Broadsheet) can't talk enough about female teachers sleeping with male students at the same time talk about the "feminization" of education is taking place.

I am glad Kley posted. I don't know if I would call abortion "murder," but I agree that abortion should be rare. To me, the important question is how can pro-choice and pro-life supporters come together to create policies that will work towards decreasing unintended/unwanted pregnancies. Spending time arguing about what constitutes a human life and what doesn't lower the rate of unintended pregancies. I don't like to tell other people what to do with their time, but whenever I see people protesting (either pro life or choice), I wonder if they spend equal time supporting ways to lower unwanted pregnancies or support adoption.

That is, I guess I want to focus on the lives that are here with us now (women and children) and focus on making their lives better, rather than arguments that aren't going to change.

making demands of the MIL won't work. Why? Because the LW is the problem in the first place. The problem can't make demands. Hubby here needs to speak up.

To be honest, I am suspicious about LW's comments that this is a "perfect" marriage. In a "perfect" marriage, I would imagine that your spouse would know about your feelings and would work to support them. Successful careers don't mean shit if your spouse doesn't think you're the most special thing in the world and isn't willing to stand in the line of fire for you. I don't mean to sound snotty, but what kind of hubby *lets* you get up three days after a c-section, let alone cook Turkey dinner? Are his hands broken?

And another way to sympathize with MIL is to recognize her role in creating the husband you love so much. Her time, effort, and energy went into providing him with something that you are now the beneficiary of--so that's at least one reason to respect the crazy lady.

uh..this is a long-time coming, no?

There is a long and lengthy political history of hurting women, including President Clinton's ending "welfare as we know it." I hate to break it to PP and NARAL, but just getting democrats into office isn't going to magically transform our society into a progressive ideal. What we need is more choice, not less. I remember standing at a PP rally and being told that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. That was a very sad moment for me, and I lost a lot of respect for PP's political advocacy.

I keep thinking that reactionary political groups (and here, I'll include PP) will reap what they sow.

What does a social movement for progressive ideas look like? I'm not sure. I don't think the old paradigms work anymore. But I sure as hell don't want to have a movement that "stays on message." How terrifying that we'd mistake form for content and meaning. I mean, the message in 2000 and 2004 was pretty clear: anyone (except Nader) but them!

We need a collective movement that focuses on the ways we are slowing burying the ideals of this country alive. War, poverty, terrifying incarceration rates, de-funding of education, rising medical costs and lack of health insurance, shrinking personal liberties (including abortion rights), and deficits that are almost un-thinkable. We need people to come together around all of these issues to prevent the U.S. from a complete moral and economic bankruptcy.

Instead of the old "personal is political," we might want to focus on how the "political is personal" in order to tie people's self-interest to the way our country continues to spiral out of control.