OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, A MINOR GREEK GODDESS. She can be reached at: ECHIDNE-OF-THE-SNAKES.COM

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Test 



Google is telling some bloggers that their blogs are going to be deleted unless they can convince Google that the blogs are not spam. How does one go about convincing Google about that? I'm a vegetarian, for goddess' sake!

In any case, I'm not locked out yet, as this test proves. But some people with honest hard-working political blogs are. What's going on?

|

How Fair Is Your Paycheck? 



It might be hard to tell, given that Americans think talking about their earnings is worse than having porn on their computers at work. Or so it seems sometimes to me.

A new bill tries to make women's paychecks fairer:

Today, the House will consider the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 1338.

...

The Paycheck Fairness Act:

* Requires that employers seeking to justify unequal pay bear the burden of proving that its actions are job-related and consistent with a business necessity.
* Prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers.
* Puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination – such as discrimination based on race, disability or age – by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages.
* Requires the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities.
* Requires the Department of Labor to continue to collect and disseminate wage information based on gender.
* Creates a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.

These are important points. Just think what happens if the Department of Labor stops to gather earnings data by gender: That would make it much harder to know if women are paid fairly, wouldn't it now? And I especially like the first point on that list, because it's the employers who have all the necessary data for that proof, and also the second point on that list, because I have never understood why stealing on the basis of sex is a lesser crime than stealing on the basis of race, disability or age.

Georgie will veto this bill, of course. The W in his name stands for women, as his campaign used to say. Only it's short for "war against women."

|

Being Britneyfied 



I had planned a feminist blog post on the recent McCain advertising campaign which tries to associate Obama's celebrity status with that of the celebrities we all love to hate: Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. They just happen to be women, too. But someone has done the work for me. Or at least most of it:

Again, I'll leave the analysis of the ad's claims about energy policy to Factcheck—who says they're false—and just look at the semiotics of that opening few seconds, which, as Michael Scherer writes elsewhere at time.com, is becoming a major thrust of the McCain argument. "He's the biggest celebrity in the world," the female voiceover intones, intercutting footage of the massive Berlin crowd chanting "O-bam-A!" with the pop of flashbulbs and Britney Spears and Paris Hilton:

* There are a lot of celebrities out there. Why those two? The message: sure, he may draw a big crowd. But he's a lightweight. He's famous for doing nothing. (Actually, I'd argue that conclusion about Britney, who, whatever else you can say about her, worked insanely on her career since she was a child.) Oh, yeah—and he's a girl.

* Seriously, why not contrast him with some male celebrities? (A McCain spokesman did compare Obama with Tom Cruise in a statement, but Maverick didn't make the cut in the TV ad.) It may say something about the attack: that it wants to question Obama's masculinity, in connection with the ad's overt attack on his leadership. Or it says something about our culture: right now, the celebs most mercilessly mocked in the tabloids and blogs—Spears, Hilton, the Olsen twins, Lindsay Lohan, etc.—are mainly women. (Spencer Pratt? Maybe not the most recognizable figure to McCain's target demo.)

I bolded that last bit for your attention.

The most hated celebrities are women, both in the U.S. and in the U.K., even though it wouldn't be that terribly hard to find equally hateworthy male stars. Why this is the case is indeed something worth thinking about. My guess is that lots of free-wheeling misogyny can be safely expressed by framing it as something about a couple of silly famous women. Sadly, this is done by both men and women. And note how those women-we-love-to-hate are always picked carefully to reflect something "unearned" about their fame, something about their good luck they don't deserve. Something about them not knowing their proper place, perhaps?

|

Sniff. Nobody Gives Me Any Talking Points 



I was watching Andrea Mitchell interview McCain's campaign manager who implied that all liberal blogs were talking about the same thing this morning, that they were all getting their talking points from some central evil computer. But I never got those instructions. I'm out of the loop! I'm gonna cry.

Of course it could be that I'm never up early enough to get the talking points. Nah. They could have e-mailed me. Now I'll have to go for a walk to kick some rocks.

|

Bogus Degrees 



Reading about people buying several false doctorates by mail tickles my funny bone, until I read about the ones who got such mailed degrees in gynecology and obstetrics. I guess a degree in, say, plumbing or electrical engineering would be pretty scary, too.

How odd that I'm not as perturbed by false doctorates in theology or in economics or in crime fighting. I probably should be. That I'm not might show something about the effects of this culture and its strong strain of anti-intellectualism. What do you think?

I once knew a university librarian who collected false degrees from all over the world if they were cheap enough. He had them all framed on the walls of his cubicle. I never thought that his little joke might have caused him legal trouble. Or perhaps collecting those degrees is OK as long as you don't try to use them.

|

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Queen of the Orcs And Other Stories 



Ludacris has produced a political song in support of Barack Obama's campaign. Sadly, the song is not one which the Obama campaign could support. Indeed, the campaign expressed its disapproval in the strongest possible terms.

And what did they disapprove? For example, these lyrics about Hillary Clinton:

Hillary hated on you, so that bitch is irrelevant

That made me wonder if she would be a relevant bitch had she and Barack not been campaign rivals, or if she then wouldn't be a bitch at all or if all women are bitches, only some are irrelevant as they are supposed to be and others are -- what? Relevant?

Is it possible to be a relevant bitch? And am I going too far with these thoughts? Of course I am! After all, I support Barack Obama's campaign as the best chance we have of slowing down the Destruction Train, and I probably shouldn't write anything at all negative about anyone who also supports that campaign.

And I do remember that John McCain is rumored to have called his very own wife a cunt and a trollop once. There are so many cute titles for women, probably because women are so very loved. You know, a beloved child has many names.

Which brings me to the fantasy book The Queen of the Orcs, by Morgan Howell. I read it on a train trip some time ago, and found the treatment of gender relations in the book very interesting, because the majority of men (as opposed to the orcs) in the book had a view of women as things to fuck and as things to use or as things to conquer with violence. Misogyny, in short, was the setting for the story, and only the orcs (who were brought up in a matriarchal society) and only a few odd human men (including the hero) were free from it.

What struck me after finishing the book was that I don't recall another fantasy book, feminist or not, with such a dismal view of men. I also wondered if the views expressed in those other books I've read weren't part of the fantasy, because the women in them were so often treated a whole lot better than they would have been in real life. They are hardly ever called irrelevant bitches, for example, when they reach for the brass ring in those fantasies.

Imagine my surprise when I found that the author of this dystopian fantasy, Morgan Howell, is a man. Interesting, is it not?

|

Campaigning, Campaigning 



Following the presidential campaigns leaves me out of breath, mostly because of the sheer boredom of it all and so I forget that breathing part. In any case, McCain has decided to step into the morass in his latest campaign twist:

I note with interest today, John McCain's new tactic of associating Barack Obama with oversexed and/or promiscuous young white women. (See today's new ad and this from yesterday.) Presumably, a la Harold Ford 2006, this will be one of those strategies that will be a matter of deep dispute during the campaign and later treated as transparent and obvious once the campaign is concluded.

But what I'm most interested in today is the new meme the McCain campaign has been pushing for the last few weeks that Obama is presumptuous, arrogant and well ... just a bit uppity. Ron Fournier picked the ball up early in his reporting for the AP. And John King was pushing it over the weekend on CNN. Is it arrogant or above Obama's station for him to meet with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve? If I'm not mistaken he is a sitting United States senator and also the presidential candidate of the Democratic party. Such meetings are actually the norm.

Now, I note that the Post, which has generally been in McCain's camp, has a front page story today that comes about as close as they feel able to confirming that McCain campaign and McCain personally have spent most of the last week peddling what they knew was a lie about Obama's called-off trip to the US military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. And there's also this piece in today's Times noting 'concern' among some Republicans over McCain's increasing use of personal attacks on Obama with what are often demonstrably false claims. How many demonstrable lies does the McCain campaign have to push before it colors the portrayal of his campaign?

If the disseminators of all this misinformation were wimmin we'd call this stuff "gossip." As in "ignore it, it's just gossip." But because the sources are mostly not wimmin we call all this serious politicking.

Let's talk about shoes, next:

If I were a right-wing blogger, and I found out that Barack Obama was wearing Ferragamo loafers that cost $520, I would spend about 50% of my waking hours making sure everyone knew this. I would mock him for being an out-of-touch elitist and make jokes like, "If you think that's a lot, you should see how much his purse costs "

It's John McCain that wears 520 smackers on his little pink feet in the form of Ferragamo slippers. I swear. But his expensive shoes don't clash with his policies, because those say that the rich should have expensive shoes and no tax payments.

Weird, is it not? If you are openly on the side of the moneyed in the class war, you can have seven or eight houses and nobody writes about those. You can even wear Ruby Slippers and nobody writes about that, either. Instead, you are called a maverick and the last honest man and stuff like that. The question then rises why anyone not born with a silver spoon in their mouth would vote for McCain, but that is another question most journalists don't write about.

Now John Edwards. He spends too much on his haircuts and his house is too big, too. And John Kerry married money. Spot the reason why McCain gets a pass on all this?

Could it be that it's OK if you are a Republican?

|

On International Feminism 



I'm fully aware that it's always risky to write about feminism or its lack in other countries or to suggest that feminists in some country could tackle the problems women face in other countries better than the people who actually live there.

But a newish aspect complicating the question how to write about all this is the following: With greater movement of people across national boundaries the views about women in one culture may suddenly impinge on the lives of women in other cultures.

An obvious example of this is the ways different cultures define what makes a woman a prostitute and how such a woman can be treated. Immigrants bring their understanding of these questions with them and clashes with the new host culture are possible. Some of these clashes can be dangerous for the women in that culture.

But even corporate values can travel, these days. Japanese managers or Russian managers might very well bring with them not just physical luggage but also their views on the proper place for women. Or they might not. But this particular topic should be discussed, I think. Even though it's full of hidden mines in terms of colonialism, racism and so on.

|

Meanwhile, in Russia 



Sexual harassment at work is just fine, because it guarantees the continuation of the human race. That was the conclusion of a judge:

Sexual harassment okay as it ensures humans breed, Russian judge rules
A Russian advertising executive who sued her boss for sexual harassment lost her case after a judge ruled that employers were obliged to make passes at female staff to ensure the survival of the human race.


By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
Last Updated: 1:12PM BST 30 Jul 2008

The unnamed executive, a 22-year-old from St Petersburg, had been hoping to become only the third woman in Russia's history to bring a successful sexual harassment action against a male employer.

She alleged she had been locked out of her office after she refused to have intimate relations with her 47-year-old boss.

"He always demanded that female workers signalled to him with their eyes that they desperately wanted to be laid on the boardroom table as soon as he gave the word," she earlier told the court. "I didn't realise at first that he wasn't speaking metaphorically."

The judge said he threw out the case not through lack of evidence but because the employer had acted gallantly rather than criminally.

"If we had no sexual harassment we would have no children," the judge ruled.

Since the end of the Soviet Union only two Russian women have won sexual harassment cases in court, and a recent survey showed that 100% of the interviewed female professionals said that they had been sexually harassed by their bosses.

My general impression is that open sexism is pretty much the rule in Russia.

|

Guerrilla Gardening 



It's a very interesting form of lawless flower power, planting flowers and vegetables on public land, parched and sour otherwise, in the middle of the night. It's illegal but really shouldn't be. Anyone who has spent time in some of those neglected areas where the soil itself is screaming its sickness agrees that a few calandulas or grasses would make a world of difference. Just fluffing the soil up a bit and adding some compost would be a life-saving act of kindness, even if you plant nothing there as the birds would.

I believe that humans need to feel a connection to nature to be healthy themselves. Children need to learn where food comes from, need to see plants grow, flowers open and seedpods develop. Children need to get their hands dirty with the dark, fertile soil which is the real mother of us all. Guerrilla gardening won't accomplish that but at least it puts plants in more places for people to see and enjoy.

|

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Today's Action Alert 






It is about the death of LaVena Johnson in Iraq. Her death has been labeled a suicide:

Three years ago, on July 19, 2005, Army Private First Class LaVena Johnson was found dead in Balad, Iraq. Her body was found in a tent belonging to the private military contractor KBR. She had abrasions all over her body, a broken nose, a black eye, burned hands, loose teeth, acid burns on her genitals, and a bullet hole in her head. The Army labeled Johnson’s death a suicide. But her parents never believed that story. They think she was raped and murdered and are now demanding a full congressional investigation into their daughter’s death.

Join with her parents to demand a full congressional investigation, here.

|

What Is Happening to Our Wealth? 



Krugman makes an interesting point about the Band-Aid Housing bill and something that it is not fixing in the broken housing markets:

After all, the new bill will, at best, make a modest dent in the rate of foreclosures. And it does nothing at all for those who aren't in danger of losing their houses but are seeing much if not all of their net worth wiped out — a particularly bitter blow to Americans who are nearing retirement, or thought they were until they discovered that they couldn't afford to stop working.

It's too late to avoid that pain. But we can try to ensure that we don't face more and bigger crises in the future.

This is an important point, because most people have almost all their wealth in their houses. When the value of those houses goes down so does the average wealth in this country. It's not only people close to retirement who are going to suffer from that (though their suffering is the hardest to avoid), it's also people who planned to take out loans against the house to finance their children's education, say.

|

Girls Can't Right Write 



And if they do they talk about boring stuff like their babies or their love interests or what they had for breakfast. That's the reason why girls are not famous bloggers like some conservative guy* called Robert Stacy McCain. And despite that girly middle moniker, he's a real good blogger because he's a guy and never writes about himself, nosir.

Besides, he covers interesting topics such as why-misogyny-is-good and how us girls can bring him some coffee and date him but only if we develop half a brain (half a brain is 'nuff, it seems, probably because conservatives are used to that much only). Though first we have to do a multiple regression analysis on the number of inches a real guy has to have. Not quite sure why, but statistics and stuff appears to impress this bon vivant and famous writer.

The comments to the bon vivant's blog post help a lot, too, in getting a girl blogger set up properly. We learn that we should be about 21 years old and have a good rack and show pictures of that. See how high we can aim in Wingnuttia! Or we could pretend to be guys and that way we'd be taken seriously. Here I come: Bruce Brutal, the famous he-man blogger.

If I combine all the good advice I'm gonna blog as Mr. Tess Tickle, on a blog which offers frequency distributions of various sexual malfunctions and oddities. And pictures of tits. This blog would probably have to be called Up Yours.
----
*Click the first link in Atrios' post.

|

Monday, July 28, 2008

Waffle Time 






Made a deadline! Have some chocolate cake and a cool glass of nectar with me and tell what made you happy today or recently.

Picture by Richard.


And today's funnies:






|

On Responsibility 



The man who killed two people in a Tennessee Unitarian Church appears to have hated liberals:

Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, "because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country's hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets."

Adkisson told Still that "he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement that he would then target those that had voted them in to office."

Adkisson told officers he left the house unlocked for them because "he expected to be killed during the assault."

Inside the house, officers found "Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder" by radio talk show host Michael Savage, "Let Freedom Ring" by talk show host Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor," by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly.

It could be that he also had books by Gandhi, say, on his shelves, and in any case it is impossible to measure the impact political hate talk shows have. But they are hate talk shows. Where did Adkisson learn his hatred? How many liberals did he know in real life? How much of his hatred was built on listening to right wing talk shows? And what responsibility do those talk show hosts have who are fueling the flames of political anger? Should they consider the fact that mentally unstable individuals might follow their words in the search for a suitable target for their incoherent anger?

These are not just questions to conservative talk show hosts, mind you, though it is those shows which skate closest to advocating actual violence. Even tame phrases like "culture wars" are ultimately violent ones, something that can slowly make you see the symbolic opposition as the real enemy, as subhuman and nasty and in need of killing. Accusations of treason, something that I read frequently against the American left, are another example of this worrisome trend.

But although the right is more likely to engage in violent language the left isn't completely free of it, either. Mostly this is in response to the changes the Gingrich "revolution" caused in conservative political framing, and I'm not sure what alternatives the left really has. It can either answer in some equally strong manner or it can roll over and play dead. There must be a third way. Perhaps Obama will show us what that is.

In the meantime, I hope that political pundits spend some time thinking about the impact they have and about the moral responsibility that goes with that impact.
|

Some Sad Echoes 



The terrorist bombing stories from Iraq, India and Turkey and the story about the man who killed two members of a Unitarian Church in Tennessee are all about violence which doesn't care who gets killed. In a sense there is no "collateral damage", because the target is to cause as much general death as possible. Nameless general death.

Remember the term "culture of death"? This was applied to any secular societies which allowed abortion, for example. I think the term would be much more appropriate for cultures which glorify the killing of already born people and especially of already born people the killer doesn't even know. Of course most cultures would then be given that title. We haven't really gotten very far with anger management.

|

Where The Women Are: Not On Olbermann's Show 



Media Matters of America looked at twelve prime-time political shows, four on each of the three cable networks, during the month of May to see what the race and gender distribution of the guests on those shows were.

Their results suggest that Latino guests are significantly underrepresented. The percentage of Latinos on those shows is less than three percent while fifteen percent of the overall population is Latino. On the other hand, African-Americans were represented roughly in proportion to their population percentage. I'm not sure why Media Matters appears to argue that they were not, though among that group men were slightly overrepresented and women underrepresented.

What about the women in general, then? Thirty-three percent of the guests were female. This is less than the population percentage of us gals, of course. Can you guess which program had the lowest percentage of female guests last May? Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He beat even Brit Hume on the manliness scale! He won (add chest thumping sounds)!

Only sixteen percent of his guests were women. Of course, if rants against Hillary Clinton counted he might have come across looking much better.

Just a small reminder that liberal doesn't necessarily equal feminist.

|

Not Quite Menopausal Yet 



The major papal encyclical confirming the Roman Catholic Church's position against artificial birth control turns forty years old. Articles on this anniversary span the whole distance of opinions from wingnuts arguing that a ban on contraceptives is all that can save Europe from becoming an Islamonazist outpost to articles like this one, about the deaths and suffering the encyclical has caused:

Catholic groups from Europe to the Americas have called on Pope Benedict XVI to reverse the Vatican's opposition to contraception, on the 40th anniversary of a major papal encyclical confirming the Roman Catholic Church's position against artificial birth control.

About 60 organizations signed the unusually frank open letter that was published as a half-page paid advertisement in Italy's largest newspaper—40 years after Pope Paul VI issued the controversial encyclical "Humanae Vitae" that enshrined the Church ban on contraception.

In their letter published on Friday in Corriere della Sera, dissident Catholic groups from countries including Britain, Brazil, Canada, France and the United States, said the effects of Humanae Vitae (On the Regulation of Birth) had been "catastrophic."

The groups argued that Catholics should be able "to plan their family life with certainty and in good conscience," saying the Church doctrine has caused suffering among the world's poorest and weakest, put the lives of women in danger and left millions of people at risk of AIDS.

The letter said the impact of the Church position had been "disastrous in the southern hemisphere, where the Catholic leadership exercises considerable influence on the politics of family planning."

I just cannot get over the oddity of celibate men deciding on whether contraception is good or not for others. It makes no sense at all. The arguments the church uses against artificial contraception also ignore the disparate impact of the ban on women. It is women who may be doomed to give birth so frequently that their bodies fail, for instance. Now that is something the celibate men who wrote the encyclical would never have to worry about.

|

Questions And Stuff 



But first, Ella Fitzgerald with One Note Samba





It's happy music for a Monday morning. I find my tail tapping with the same rhythm.

And now the questions. They are about the comments threads on this blog. Should I make up a set of rules which people should follow? And if so, what should be in those rules? I'd be interested in hearing your opinions.

Finally, I found this story about beguinages fascinating.

|

Sunday, July 27, 2008

The Law’s Use of “Science” Isn’t Governed By The Rules of Science by Anthony McCarthy 

There is an interview in today’s Boston Globe with Victoria Nourse about the dangerous history of eugenics and the general use of shoddy science by the law.

The temptation will be to focus on the Nazi’s use of American pioneering eugenics laws and policies as cover for the beginning of their “solution”. And while doing that, please notice that American eugenicists were emboldened by the early Nazi activities in this area. But the really important thing to notice is the history of eugenics here, in the Unites States, and how it figured into actual law and administrative policy once sanctioned by the Supreme Court in 1927*. For us the most important use of this history is in how these things were allowed within the context of the United States Constitution and the class system in place here.

Q: How did the Depression force the issue of sterilization?

A: There was no money. One way that asylum directors could reduce their populations was by sterilizing "safe" people and releasing them. By 1933-34 Oklahoma decided to enforce its sterilization laws. The governor also declared that criminals would avoid his state if they knew they could actually be sterilized as opposed to other states where the law existed but was never applied.

The, by now undeniable, divorcement from reality of the U.S. Supreme Court and the difficulty of overturning their use of poshly pedigreed trash science has been and will likely be an increasing problem for those of us interested in protecting our liberties and equality. Judges are as prone to the superstition of scientism as anyone else and, as seen in the example of the Bush regime, junk science in the interest of a priveleged elite can rule over both real science and the fact that the junk is, despite its presentation, pseudo-science. Even Supreme Court rulings take effect at a glacial pace as seen here:

Q: Did the 1942 Supreme Court decision end enforced sterilization in the US?

A: No. It continued for a very long time. I refer to a case in the 1980s where an African-American woman, a college graduate, sued because she was sterilized in this way. Basically they used consent to justify this in the asylums, the welfare offices. But the consent was often extorted, obtained by threats of restraints in asylums, of punishment, of expulsion from the welfare system

Q: What if the Supreme Court had upheld the Oklahoma law?

A: There would have been more violence in the prisons, for one thing. The prisoners in McAlester used violence, to keep the case alive. Sterilization in asylums would probably have increased as a way to save money. I shudder to think.

Having written about my reservations about the pop-law enthusiasm for dodgy-looking cognitive and behavioral science in the past, I’m glad to see that some actual scholars are having doubts about it as well. Since scientists aren’t effectively countering the premature promotion of very preliminary research, it’s probably up to people such as legal scholars to throw up the warning flag.

Q: What are you warning against?

A: The true problem is false genetics, false prediction. I'm thrilled by advances in genetic research, but I get nervous when I read about the "God gene" or the "gay gene" because I can't judge that as a scientific claim. I'm also warning against unanticipated consequences. Most geneticists were pro-eugenics, they believed in the power of their discoveries. Meanwhile eugenicists looked for the feebleminded and found them. There are risks of arrogance in science, but the real dangers lie in the popularization of false science, in convincing laypersons of the inevitability of traits that are contingent. Genetics is a science of probability, not fate.

In the behavioral and allied sciences the history shows way too much of this kind of wishful “discovery”. When that attitude provides pseudo-scientific fodder for political and judicial expediency in pursuit of a goal, the results are very dangerous.


* The besainted Holmes on this provides a lesson in what to look out for when dealing with the myopia of legal and academic thinkers and their propensity to look at people as mere categories instead of as persons having rights of their own. It also shows that when people have a lot of power, you can’t just go on reputation. No decision by a hero with power should go unexamined due to sentimental or even emotional attachment.
|

The War on Military Metaphors (by Phila) 

Patricia H. Kushlis and Robert M. Jeffers are both getting a wee bit tired of our militarized discourse. Here's PHK:
Painting the world in “us-versus-them” shoot-em-up vocabulary precludes dialog. It precludes mutual understanding. It also intimately relates to an exorbitantly expensive and unnecessary militarization of US foreign policy and foreign policy institutions that is at least partially responsible for precipitating the serious economic problems we currently face.
And here's RMJ:
The soldier we are being asked to lionize now is a mercenary who fights so we don't have to: so we can sit around airports chatting amiably and maybe buy a beer and be glad somebody is off fighting foreigners so we don't have to think of them as anything but the enemy we can get somebody to keep at bay.
These are both reasonable points, and they got me thinking about my own reasons for disliking this language (I mean, apart from the fact that its central post-9/11 purpose is to make specific legal arguments for specific extralegal goals).

The main thing that bothers me is that these words are portals to a sort of mythic time in which all "just wars" seem to take place in an emotional present tense, so that the grubby ambitions of the Bush Administration become just another verse in the Song of Freedom (cf. Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture).

It's also a time in which leaders shouldn't be questioned, and good citizens know what to do, either because they listen to orders, or have internalized them to the extent that they obey without being ordered and without having to think. As such, it's a dumbed-down, popularized version of military discipline that applies more to opinion than action, and risks nothing, and thus can cheerfully ignore realities that actual soldiers usually can't. In other words, it's a tool for "mobilizing" public opinion (which is itself a military metaphor, of course, and a telling one); those whose opinions can't or won't be mobilized are, in essence, deserters.

Last, I object to it because it puts a veneer of seriousness on endeavors that are usually anything but. When we speak officially of launching a "war" on something, it generally means that lots of money will be spent on exacerbating a problem whose causes have been oversimplified to the point of inanity, and for which the wrong people are sure to be held responsible and made to suffer.

I'm not sure whether I agree with PHK that this language "precludes mutual understanding" internationally; I tend to assume that world leaders, at least, understand each other's basic concerns pretty well. But it certainly does try to preclude domestic dissent.

Still, these complaints are somewhat abstract, compared to the legal and political utility of being a "wartime president," or of calling the occupation of Iraq a war. PHK hopes that the next administration will be willing to drop the “War on Terror” metaphor from its vocabulary. I suppose that depends on whether it'll be willing to forfeit the power and judicial deference that go along with it.
|

Saturday, July 26, 2008

A Staggering Injustice (by Phila) 

Having started the day by deciphering the Voynich Manuscript, hoisting a crate of doubloons from the Oak Island Money Pit, and solving the riddle of the Delhi Iron Pillar, I'm ready to tackle Mona Charen's article on George W. Bush's "unrequited love for blacks and other minorities."

Bush, she says, has an "unwavering interest" in the poor, which reminds me of J.B.S. Haldane's gag about the Creator's inordinate fondness for beetles. But despite this interest, the poor, the downtrodden, and the oppressed have so far refused to come down from their ivory tower and humble themselves in the dust at his feet.

Which the Dear knows is bad enough. It gets worse, though. Blacks became frustrated when Bush did absolutely nothing to live up to their image of him as an archetypal White Devil, and so they took yet another page out of Tawana Brawley's book and falsified the evidence against him:
When no other opportunity for tarring President Bush presented itself, his detractors seized upon Hurricane Katrina as the catch basin for all the free-floating bile against the president.
Some people might find it somewhat...inelegant to use metaphors like "catch basin" and "free-floating" in regards to an event that left the corpses of black men, women, and children floating through the flooded streets of their city (especially while suggesting that the president was the real victim of that tragedy). But in my view, the fact that Charen has forgotten human decency to this extent shows how deeply she's been touched by the plight of this misunderstood man.

Know what else Bush did for these goddamn nappy-headed ingrates? He "practically bankrupted the treasury by spending on AIDS treatment in Africa," that's what. And what did he get for his trouble?
[T]he normally voluble African-American community has been virtually silent on the matter.
And as everyone knows, it's when the drumming and chanting stops that it's time to worry.

Charen complains that a liberal magazine says "Bush's AIDS Program is Failing Africans." This seems like a perfect occasion for her to ascertain whether there's any truth to the charge. But she can't be bothered. Which means that for the first time in the history of this troubled globe, a policy of "bankrupting the treasury" in order to help blacks has received no skeptical conservative scrutiny.

Just for the record, the "liberal magazine" in question notes that "the White House's AIDS prevention mantra...prescribes abstinence and marital fidelity, with condoms only for 'high risk' groups like prostitutes and truck drivers":
"We are now seeing a shift in recent years to abstinence only," [Beatrice Were] said. "We are expected to abstain when we are young girls and to be faithful when we are married to men who rape us, who are not necessarily faithful to us, who batter us."
Such ingratitude, after all that "AIDS treatment" we gave these bloody heathens. It makes you wonder why "we" bother.

Minorities (you know who you are) should also be grateful to Bush for the No Child Left Behind Act...which may or may not have worked, but it's the thought that counts!
It's impossible to gauge how much, if any, of this measured success is due to NCLB...But this much is certain: If scores had not improved or had declined, NCLB would be universally blamed.
In other words, if American test scores had gone down, certain irrational people might've questioned the efficacy of a program that was intended to make them go up. Behold the prospective intolerance of the voluble African-American community! (You can behold it here, too.)

In summation:
The excitement at the prospect of the first African-American president is natural and understandable. But the total contempt shown by the African-American community toward this president is a staggering injustice.
Although conservatives like Charen have taught me to distrust the "culture of victimhood," the evidence here is overwhelming: black Americans have unconscionably oppressed the President over the last eight years.

I say we give him forty acres and a mule, just as soon as his shackles are struck loose, and he's freed at last from the long nightmare of executive power.
|

The Innocent Have Nothing to Fear (by Phila) 

A religious group called Christian Voice is angry about a new, "sexually suggestive" outfit for Barbie:
“Barbie has always been on the tarty side and this is taking it too far. A children’s doll in sexually suggestive clothing is irresponsible – it’s filth.”
In Georgia, meanwhile, a woman who was convicted of sodomy at 17, because she had oral sex with a 15-year-old boyfriend, is finding it hard to settle down.
[Wendy] Whitaker, 28, has moved twice because of the sex offender law's restrictions that say an offender cannot live within 1,000 feet of places where children congregate. Whitaker was recently told by a sheriff she must move again because her home is within 1,000 feet of a church.
Ms. Whitaker is currently seeking legal remedies that will allow her to remain in the home she and her husband just bought. On Thursday, the state attorney general's office filed a motion reminding interested parties that:
"Assuming there is actual enforcement of an existing provision of the sex offender statute, [its] purpose ... is to protect the most innocent of victims, Georgia's children"....
|

Scared, Exhausted, Hungry, and Distraught (by Phila) 

A woman named Maria Ventura was recently arrested in Maryland North Carolina on a traffic charge, at about 2 AM. Because she was in the United States illegally, and had no driver's license, she was taken to jail; the deputy who arrested her left her three young children on the shoulder of Interstate 85 for eight hours.
The father, Antonio Perez, said he got a cell phone call from the sobbing children around 2 a.m. They had been headed from their home in Western North Carolina to visit him in Maryland. Perez, who doesn't have a license and had to get his uncle to drive him, arrived at 10:30 a.m. to find his children scared, exhausted, hungry, and distraught over the loss of their mother.
The officer in question left the children with a member of their church who happened to be getting a ride with the family; he abandoned them shortly after the police left.

Police spokesman Randy Jones says, "I can't find anything wrong with what the officer did."

Granted, no one asked these kids to be born. And no one can deny that Ventura broke the law, which is behavior that no real American tolerates from any nonwhite person who earns less than $100K per annum.
Alamance County participates in a federal program, called 287(g) for a section of law, that allows jailers to check immigration status and begin deportation proceedings on those they arrest. Many sheriffs, including Alamance Sheriff Terry Johnson, tout the program as a way to stop violent repeat criminals.
What kind of person wouldn't support that? Violence is a tragedy, after all; it tears families apart and traumatizes children.
|

Priorities (by Phila) 

As you may or may not know, roughly 400,000 rape kits remain untested. The ostensible reason is a lack of funds, though Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch is undoubtedly correct that the backlog stems from "a failure to treat rape as seriously as other violent crimes."

In 2004, Congress passed a bill mandating the testing of backlogged rape kits. However, as Ms. Tofte notes:
[T]he program has been expanded to allow states to test backlogged DNA evidence from any crime. Even as the proportion of rape victims who report their assaults is increasing, the processing of rape evidence is still backlogged -- and the arrest rate of rapists is decreasing.
One can only imagine the chain of custody issues that could be raised in regards to a rape kit that's several years old. Wouldn't it be strange if this objective evidence ended up becoming as "unreliable" as the unsupported testimony of the women from whom it was taken?

The bill is also complicated by an effort to gather DNA evidence on all felons, and on people who've been arrested but not convicted:
The House version of the reauthorization risks diluting the program's effectiveness by requiring states to expand their DNA databases to include all felons and certain arrestees. Adding people who have not been convicted of any crime to DNA databases raises civil rights and civil liberties concerns, adding unnecessary controversy to the program.
I wonder which of these efforts will receive more attention and funding, ultimately? Tracking down rapists, of course, simply gratifies the lust for revenge of women who -- for all we know -- may've asked to be raped in the first place; it's a way for them to have their cake and eat it too. But expanding our DNA database of arrestees could solve or even prevent all sorts of high-impact crimes, from gas-station holdups in the ghetto to eco-terrorism in suburban developments. I mean, if you're going to throw a bunch of money at a marginal problem like sexual assault, why not get something useful out of it? It's a simple matter of priorities.

Incidentally, the comments on Ms. Tofte's article are about as illuminating as you'd expect, giving our status as a civilized nation. One commenter suggests that women ought to carry little knives, and says that "a sufficiently ruthless and frenzied defense will give the rapist little opportunity to take the weapon away and use it against her." And if not, well...death before dishonor!

Women who don't carry knives, or are insufficiently ruthless and frenzied in their use of them, obviously like the idea of being raped, on some level.
|

Friday, July 25, 2008

Support I-VAWA (by Suzie) 

The International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) is an unprecedented effort by the United States to address violence against women globally. It directs the U.S. government to create a comprehensive, 5-year strategy to reduce violence in 10-20 diverse countries identified as having severe levels of violence against women.
          This comes from Amnesty International, which has ways to take action. Here’s a Washington Post article on the subject.
          I-VAWA needs your help because men’s rights activists and other conservatives are marshaling forces against it. Here's an example. The basic arguments: We don't need an international version of VAWA, which has broken up families in the United States. Violence against U.S. women is overblown, but the system is biased against men. It gives financial incentives to women to report men, and then law enforcement reacts aggressively, “even when a brief cooling-off period will suffice” or the woman has lied about violence. Women get divorced and get custody of their children, perhaps not even allowing fathers to visit. Many men don’t want to marry anymore because they fear false accusations of domestic violence. In the end, children suffer because they need two-parent families.
            As Twisty might say, I don't want no MRAs arguing with me. If you don't know the facts, visit the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence or read today's article by Marie Tessier.

|

Participatory medicine (by Suzie) 



           Wednesday was the sixth anniversary of my first surgery for leiomyosarcoma, a rare cancer. I never thought I'd forget that date, but I was startled when I got an automated message of congratulations from Hyster Sisters, a Web site run by women who’ve had hysterectomies.
          Groups like this exist, in part, because of the grass-roots women’s health movement of the 1960s and ’70s, which encouraged women to learn about their bodies, rather than defer all decision-making to doctors. (Read more here and here.)
           Related to that movement is the new “participatory medicine.” Through the Internet, people can now access much more medical information as well as connect with patients in distant locations. Health-care professionals need to “learn to love” new sources of information, including patients who are experts, writes Gilles Frydman, founder and president of the Association of Cancer Online Resources (ACOR). He says informed patients must be involved in all decision-making. 
           I belong to an ACOR list for leiomyosarcoma, and I volunteer in peer-to-peer programs. I support the concept of participatory medicine.
           In any revolution, however, a danger exists that one tyranny will replace another. We must be careful not to become what we wanted to replace. When people set themselves up as experts, when they are convinced that they know what’s best for others, then they resemble the old model of doctor as deity.
           We fall into these traps so easily. Those who are more educated, articulate and literate, who have more credentials, who have the time and interest, need to make space for the voices of others. We should not create new orthodoxies; we should remain open to challenges, to new ideas. 
      
|

Friday Critter Blogging (by Suzie) 

        I wish I were as tough as longhorns, lounging in the hot Texas sun. I wish I had spectacular, curving horns. How useful they would be in a crowd: “Excuse me.” “Pardon me,” I would say, swinging my head right and left, clearing my path. Longhorns are smart, gentle and resourceful. What’s not to love?
         This is a photo of the Fort Worth Herd. Tomorrow, Fort Worth is celebrating Cowboy Days. I didn’t see any mention of cowgirls, but I hope visitors will see the National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame.

|

The Poor Low Female Libido 



I came across a write-up of a study about the lack of sexual desire in women, with these findings:

A study in last week's Archives of Internal Medicine shines new light on the question.

Researchers conducted phone surveys of 2,207 women age 30 to 70 and found that 36.2 percent – or more than one out of every three women – admitted to tepid sexual desire in the last 30 days. All the women had been in a steady relationship at least three months.

The finding is consistent with earlier studies. For instance, when University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann asked U.S. women about sex in a landmark 1999 study, also published in JAMA, 32 percent reported having low libidos. (By contrast, 15 to 17 percent of men acknowledged a diminished sex drive.)

Fascinating stuff. Note that men and women may have different incentives to answer questions about libido honestly, because libido is linked to the concept of manliness. My guess is that the actual percentage of men with low libidos is higher than 15 to 17 percent.

What's much more fascinating about the study is this:

(The study was funded by Procter & Gamble, which wants to sell a testosterone patch for women in the U.S. It's already available in Europe.)

A small conflict of interest there? I'm willing to bet a lot that Procter & Gamble wanted to find lots of low libido among women, because they plan to sell testosterone patches to fix it. The writer of the blog post I quoted should be commended for pointing that out. But it might have been good to also point out that the funder's interests make the study theoretically suspect.

Do you want to have some real feminist fun? Go and read the comments thread to the post. You will find a guy suspecting that it's all those uppity career women who have problems, because they get high testosterone levels and grow facial hair and so on. Of course testosterone is the hormone that increases sexual desire in women...

You will also find lots of evolutionary science speculation about the reason why women don't have much sexual desire (note how the one-third figure sorta expands to 100% in many of those comments), and you will find women attacked for not being willing to do their marital duty and so on.

It's a little bit like lifting a rock and watching the creepy-crawlies.

|

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Obama in Berlin 



Attracted over 200,000 to his speech in the Tiergarten. Europeans are thirsty for some smart American leadership, you know. Some of them may not really care that much about Obama's policies, but they see someone who might not bully them mercilessly for the next four years, and that would be a nice change from their point of view. They also don't want all these "pre-emptive" wars. European history has been a harsh teacher about the differences between computer games and real wars.

|

One Hundred 



That is the number of female service members who have now died in Iraq:

Of the 100 female service members who died:

# 97 were troops, and three were military civilian employees.

# 61 of them have been classified as hostile -- occurring during combat or enemy attacks -- and 39 have been non-hostile.

# 12 died in 2003, 19 in 2004, 20 in 2005, 15 in 2006, 27 in 2007 and seven this year.

# 80 of those were members of the Army, nine were Navy, seven were Marines, and four were Air Force.

So the hostile death rate is 61 percent. And women are not engaging in direct combat? That pretense must stop, especially given the character of the fighting in Iraq: it has no front and no safe places.

The pretense is also harmful for female veterans, because they don't get the kind of help and treatment many of them need after returning home. They weren't in combat, after all.

|

The Grand New Party 



That is the title of a new wingnut book by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam. It also has a subtitle, natch: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream. I immediately started thinking of alternative subtitles for the book:

The Grand New Party: Why Being a Banana in a Banana Republic Is Good For You.

The Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the War Against the Working Class.

The Grand New Party: Sharks, Dead White Women And Rapture.


And so on, though that last one is a little bizarre.

But the short description of the Douthat-Salam book actually sounds a little interesting:

It's chock full of interesting economic ideas that Republicans can use to better appeal to working-class voters and families. Among them: massively expanding the tax credit for children, a "GI bill" of tuition tax credits for stay-at-home parents who want to get back into the workforce, and government investment in a better telecommunications infrastructure to boost telecommuting.

How odd. The book actually proposes government money to help ordinary people! Like those middle-of-the-roadies do, the ones wingnuts usually call commies. Or like the progressives tend to recommend. Indeed, the proposals make these Republicans come across as -- Democrats!

But a closer reading of the list of recommendations reveals something even more interesting: All these things are meant to bolster the traditional family arrangements, to keep mothers at home and to encourage high rates of fertility. The summary description doesn't tell us what support, if any, non-traditional families would get. I bet there would be none, even though the members of those non-traditional families would still be paying the taxes to fund the programs.

I may be overly suspicious. Probably not, though, because the authors are social conservatives, after all.

|

What Ails Economics 



A woman in Taunton, Massachusetts, has committed suicide because she had lost her house and it was going to be auctioned off later on the day of her suicide. She lived in the house with her husband and at least one adult child, but it was she who had managed the bills and her husband didn't even know about the foreclosure or the auction. So he came home from work to find her dead, with a suicide letter by her side suggesting that he should use the life insurance money to keep the house.

It is such a horrible story. We are unlikely to know all of it, of course. She may have been suffering from mental illness or depression, for instance. But the story highlights the tragic and devastating aspects of the housing crisis, the human aspects of that crisis. To lose your home is to lose the shelter against storms, snow, excessive heat, violent humans on the streets. To lose your home dislocates you not just in concrete terms but in the landscape of your mind. It can label you as a failure, as a drifter as someone with no protection and no power.

And none of this is really and truly addressed in the economic discussions of the housing crisis, because economics cannot measure and quantify these aspects of human suffering, except in the most rudimentary and glancing ways. That inability to measure costs which are not easily converted to dollars and cents has in practice meant that economists tend to ignore those items or at least weigh them less than the billions lost here or gained there.

Once you ignore the psychological costs in various markets it's easy to start thinking that losing a job, say, is just a question of searching for another one. And if all the jobs you have been trained for go overseas, never mind. Just go back to college for another four years and get a different job!

Now, the advice isn't bad, but it ignores all those psychological costs having to do with job loss: the need to move your family, the broken connections to your previous community, the friends your children lose, the loss of meaning in your own life and so on. Once those costs are ignored it's just one short step to pretending that they don't exist, that market transitions are frictionless and that there are no transaction or search costs, either.

Then you get the idea that markets are free and hum along like an expensive car, and if you don't want to drive in one of those, get the bus to the welfare office or walk.

|

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Try This One 



I got my thoughts into that downward spiral after reading Joe Klein's comment on John McCain's campaign strategies. This one:

John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

Klein didn't like that statement at all, because it attributes quite nasty motives to Obama and replays that idea of McCain as The Last Honest Man, I guess.

Now try to understand what McCain is saying. It's fun. First, he'd rather lose a political campaign than a war and Obama would rather lose a war than a political campaign. OK. But do you see what's so wonderfully weird about that? If McCain decides to lose the political campaign in order to win the war, who's gonna be the president, eh?

Right! Obama. And he will then lose the war, according to McCain. So McCain's noble promise to step aside makes no difference. Which means that he's every bit as campaign-focused as Obama.

None of that makes any sense, but I enjoyed it. That's the reason I remain a minor political blogger goddess.

|

On Non-Lethal Weapons 



Giving a weapon that reputation may actually make it lethal. Take tasers:

Winnipeg police say a 17-year-old male who died after being hit with a taser stun gun was brandishing a knife when he was confronted.

Police say they asked him several times to drop the knife before the taser was deployed. They joined two local citizens who flagged down a police car while pursuing the man after receiving a call related to a theft from a car.

The Winnipeg Police Service confirmed the details Wednesday at a press conference.

The teen was taken to hospital in critical condition and later pronounced dead. The cause of death has yet to be determined pending an autopsy.

That was in Canada. In Louisiana the tasered man was lying on the ground and in handcuffs. He was still given nine shocks:

Louisiana authorities are awaiting the results of a state police report before deciding whether to file criminal charges in the Taser death of a handcuffed man.

Baron "Scooter" Pikes, 21, was shocked nine times by officer Scott Nugent after being arrested on a cocaine charge in Winnfield earlier this year, CNN reported Wednesday.

You should read Rorschach's personal story about taser use by the police, too. It will make your hair rise up for all sorts of reasons, especially racism.

It's hard to know how common taser deaths are, because to measure that we'd need to know how often tasers are used and how often they are used in extreme ways. But my guess is that the very idea of tasers as non-lethal is likely to encourage over-use.

|

The Liberal Media Strikes Again 



CBS News edited out a faux pas by McCain.





This is not the first time the media has rather openly taken sides in politics. But changing his answer in this way is really very bad. It gives the viewers a false sense of security about McCain's knowledge levels.

|

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Some Of My Least Favorite Things 



The hot sun right over my head in a car with faulty air conditioning, like being slowly fried in my own sweat. I think of myself as a flounder, floundering, being breaded in pollution dust and filleted by the cocky sun gods. Whose dinner dish shall I be?

Clams in any form whatsoever. They will never be my dinner dish, slimy little buggers as they are. And do they have eyes and do those eyes cause that squeaking sound when you have to bite into them and then swallow something that tastes like post-nasal drip with garlic? If the American Empire is in its death throes it's probably the fault of clams, not of dirty fucking hippies. I bet clams would vote Republican.

The talk of the day in politics. It's interesting the first hundred times but after that it's like pulling quite firmly attached teeth with rusty pliers and makes me wonder why I ever thought politics would be fun to write. It's not fun if you have to follow the stupid rules about remembering to say that your honorable opponent really is the best thing since Ziplock bags even though right now he is talking from his other end. But such a wise thinker, usually. Indeed.

Double-Speak. Waffling. False dualisms. Writing formulas. Falling apart until only sentence fragments appear. So.

|

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy 



The influence of money in American politics is a serious problem for those of us who would like to see democracy based on the one-vote-one-person rule. It is also the reason why so many Congress-critters are millionaires or billionaires and why the media can discuss (and discuss) the rich lifestyles and many mansions of presidential candidates: There's no political career without money.

Lobbyists have influence in Washington D.C. because of money. Poor people don't have that influence (though mostly they don't vote, either), and the importance of money is the main reason why the corporations hold so much sway in the actual running of this country. Someone must pay the bills and whoever holds the wallet tends to have a bigger say than democracy dictates.

Yet campaign funding reforms seldom stick. It's all enough to make a goddess want to drown herself in nectar, and a reason to pay attention to Obama's apparent ability to get funding from hordes of small donors:

One thing that is clear is that Obama's vast base of small donors – 1.7 million was the last public count — carries big clout. To date, Obama has reported raising $338 million for his campaign from individuals and 94% of his donations have come in amounts of $200 or less.

If this democratizes the influence of money, I'm happy, though I'd be even happier with properly run public finance of campaign expenses (combined with a time limit on the length of the campaign and a requirement for equal time for all candidates in various media). The bundlers (people who collect and aggregate small donations into larger bundles) could still wield disproportionate influence under the small-donors model.

|

More on Stud Flicks 



This is fascinating stuff:

While writing Female characters exist to promote male leads for network profits, I realized something I had never quite put together in so many words. It's important enough to deserve its own article (thanks, Bellatrys!), so here it is: my screenwriting professors taught me not to write scripts that passed the Bechdel/Mo Movie Measure/"Dykes To Watch Out For" test, and I can tell you why, and this needs to be known.

The "Dykes to Watch Out For" test, formerly coined as the "Mo Movie Measure" test and Bechdel Test, was named for the comic strip it came from, penned by Alison Bechdel - but Bechdel credits a friend named Liz Wallace, so maybe it really should be called the Liz Wallace Test…? Anyway, the test is much simpler than the name. To pass it your movie must have the following:

1) there are at least two named female characters, who

2) talk to each other about

3) something other than a man.

So simple, and yet as you go through all your favorite movies (and most of your favorite TV shows, though there's a little more variety in TV), you find very few movies pass this test.

It's not a coincidence. It's not that there aren't enough women behind the camera (there aren't, but that's not the reason). Here's what we're up against (and for those who have requested a single post that summarizes my experiences in film for linking reference, now you've got it).

When I started taking film classes at UCLA, I was quickly informed I had what it took to go all the way in film. I was a damn good writer, but more importantly (yeah, you didn't think good writing was a main prerequisite in this industry, did you?) I understood the process of rewriting to cope with budget (and other) limitations. I didn't hesitate to rip out my most beloved scenes when necessary. I also did a lot of research and taught myself how to write well-paced action/adventure films that would be remarkably cheap to film - that was pure gold.

There was just one little problem.

I had to understand that the audience only wanted white, straight, male leads. I was assured that as long as I made the white, straight men in my scripts prominent, I could still offer groundbreaking characters of other descriptions (fascinating, significant women, men of color, etc.) - as long as they didn't distract the audience from the white men they really paid their money to see.

The quoted post also explains why there will never be a movie about a snake goddess who draws men to her like wasps to a honey pot, and the reason is that the major markets for movies are seen to be young men and they are not interested in identifying with me. Or with any other female character.

Or so the powers that be have decided. Movies must appeal to men. Hence we call stud flicks just general movies while reserving a specific name for movies which appeal to women: chick flicks. (Note how nicely I restrained from inventing the rhyming name for stud flicks).

You should read the whole linked post as it's most interesting and instructive. It connects the profitability of movies with such odd things as how grating female voices might seem and how men don't really want to listen to women. Or can't hear them when they speak. Or assume that they talk about lipstick or love or some other gooey topic that might give them girl cooties.

There's even a connection to that Sudden Muteness Syndrome so many women have experienced: You make a suggestion at a meeting and it drops like a rock into a pool of murky water. Then some guy makes the same suggestion and suddenly it is discussed, debated and so on. And you leave the meeting wondering why you suddenly seem to have turned into a mute and digging deep inside yourself for all sorts of self-blaming explanations. Until you learn that the Sudden Muteness Syndrome is really common among women who attend meetings, and that it should really be renamed The Sudden Male Deafness Syndrome.

I'm not saying that most young men really are totally uninterested in women as persons or unable to identify with female characters, but at least some teachers of film seem to believe that. So the teaching goes around the vicious circle and solutions to the "stud flickiness" of most mass-market movies will not be easy to find.

|

Monday, July 21, 2008

An Idle Question 



I was watching a movie preview here, all about a guy with a silly mask who nevertheless attracts loads of gorgeous women, and I wondered if that "plot" would lend itself to a gender reversal. Has anyone done one of those? Perhaps.

I also found myself really wanting one of those kinds of movies. It would be for the insecure geeky teenage girl I once was (or for her memory), just as these movies are intended for the insecure teenage boys who comprise a major market for new movies.

|

The Best Contraceptive Pill 



According to the abstinence folks is probably an aspirin firmly held between the woman's knees. Hillary Clinton has written about the recent Bush administration proposal which equates the contraceptive pill with abortifacients:

The Bush Administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can't let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women's health and that's why I am sounding the alarm.

It's good that Senators Clinton and Murray are raising a bit of an alarm over the proposed changes in the DHHS. These have to do with the health care providers' conscience clauses and misapply the term "discrimination" in a way which I think actually cheapens the term. For more on this, see my piece for Huffington Post.

|

More Purity Balls 






These are not Norwegian meatballs, but those father-daughter dances in which the father promises to guard his daughter's sexual purity until marriage and where the daughter promises to obey him in that. The events are always shrouded in Christianity, including the girls kneeling in front of a sword. Other mythology sometimes includes a locket shaped like a heart and given to the daughter by the father. There's a key to the locket but he keeps it until she gets married. At that time the key is passed to the husband.

Many have written about the things which bother me about these balls: That they have an improper sexual tint, that they are based on fathers owning their daughters sexuality and then passing that ownership to the future husbands of the same daughters, that the focus of these balls is on the daughters and not on the sons (though mother-son balls are also becoming more popular). That last aspect is linked to the old assumption that girls can guard their fortress vaginas against the insistent battering rams of boys, that boys don't have to try to stop battering and that any breaches in the ramparts are her fault, not his.

Now Time magazine has come out with a piece which argues that Purity Balls have many positive aspects, too, such as encouraging teens to delay dangerous sex and creating more caring fathers. Feministing.com gives a summary critique of the article. I want to talk more about those positive aspects.

A quote from the article helps:

If you listen long enough, you wonder whether there is really such a profound disagreement about what parents want for their children. Culture war by its nature pours salt in wounds, finds division where there could be common purpose. Purity is certainly a loaded word--but is there anyone who thinks it's a good idea for 12-year-olds to have sex? Or a bad idea for fathers to be engaged in the lives of their daughters and promise to practice what they preach? Parents won't necessarily say this out loud, but isn't it better to set the bar high and miss than not even try?

Or in other words: Who cares about the means we use to get to the goals we all agree about: less early sex and more father involvement in their daughters lives? That sounds Jesuit to me. But more importantly, it assumes that the goals are correctly reached with Purity Balls, that the daughters will in fact keep their virginity longer, perhaps even until marriage, and that this particular fatherly involvement is what we would like to see in the lives of young girls.

As the article itself notes, evidence does not suggest that Purity Ball vows work, though I doubt that anyone has yet done a proper study of just this particular form of abstinence education. And I'd rather see fathers take their daughters out to age appropriate movies and then dinner where they can discuss the movie and its messages, or out to the backyard to teach them to throw a ball and play games or to the bookstore where they can pick up books they like and share what it is they like about them. And so on.

There is something very sad about fathers who feel that they don't know how to father their daughters, and I can see how something like Purity Balls might give them an opening for closer contact. But do these dances do that? Or are they perhaps the only fathering some of these men give their daughters? And what is the message that would send them? That they are only of interest in the context of their sexuality? That the daughters must dress up in age inappropriate evening gowns (some of them quite revealing) and go out on "a date" with their dads to get their attention? That it is in this odd virginal temptress form that they are lovable?

A long time ago I read a popular psychology book about parenting teenage daughters. About the only advice it had to give to fathers was for them to model the man their daughters would one day marry. Even then I found the advice to be extremely insulting to men and firmly based on the patriarchal tradition that women don't really matter, as they are something passed on to other families through marriage contracts, that fathers don't have to interact with their teenage daughters, except to the extent of modeling male behavior for them. I imagined all the young girls who were wilting in a world where often the most powerful person in the family ignored their lives so very completely. Reading all that made me both angry and sad, but I hoped that the book was exaggerating.

Now I think it might not have been that much of an exaggeration. Certainly the Purity Balls are an attempt to make that kind of very partial fathering, one seeped in male dominance, into something a little bit more. That's how I read the Time article, and that's why I don't agree with its somewhat positive conclusions. Fathers and daughters both deserve a real parent-child relationship.

|

Sunday, July 20, 2008

New Victims (by Phila) 

Maggie Gallagher is upset with Spain for contemplating the granting of certain "human rights" to great apes.
Spain's proposed rewriting of our own Declaration of Independence reads something like this: All apes are endowed by parliament with certain inalienable rights, among them life, personal safety, limited freedom of movement and the right to claim property through court-appointed (human) guardians.
What this means is that they can't be killed (except in self-defense), can't be used in medical experiments, and can't be compelled to "act" in films or "perform" in circuses. (That's what it means on paper, at least; there are plenty of human beings whose human rights don't seem to afford them very much protection from discrimination, exploitation and murder, and I assume that'll hold true for apes as well.)

Obviously, the part about limiting medical experimentation is controversial, but that's not what bothers Gallagher. Her complaints are a bit more abstruse, as thus:
By now the basic outline of the strategy for cultural power is clear: Begin with one of the world's truly great moral and spiritual narratives -- the civil rights movement -- but take black people out of the heart of this narrative, and insert the new victim d'jour.

Divert the spiritual and moral power of the movement -- for which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. died -- to strange new purposes.
See, the civil rights movement existed solely to convince a majority of white people that not all black people are subnormal. And it was marvelously successful...so much so that structural racism can no longer be considered an excuse for blacks' failure to thrive. Therefore, the movement can now be viewed sentimentally as one more jewel in America's crown (or better yet, invoked as proof of our basic goodwill, when it comes time once again to civilize some backwards nation).

What we must not do is imagine that this struggle is ongoing, or that it has any connection to debates over the legal status of women or workers or gays or animals (all of whom Gallagher believes either deserve a certain amount of formal oppression, or are better off when subjected to it).

Gallagher also worries that the plea for "tolerance" is intolerant:
Redefine the word "tolerance" so it means: Agree with me or be denounced and driven from the public square.
What "tolerance" has to do with making it illegal to butcher apes, I have no idea. But it seems obvious that legal protections are intolerant by their very nature; they're intolerant of aggression, theft, and so forth. For someone who's perpetually fretting over the breakdown of society and the evils of multiculturalism, Gallagher's rhetoric can be remarkably anarchic.

Enough dallying, though. Let's get to the real question: If we're going to make it illegal to kill endangered apes, why not make it illegal for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies?
Could the next great civil rights movement be to protect the million not-yet-born children each year who are literally never permitted to see the light of day? Could the culturemakers who need to see themselves as participating in this great moral drama that gives meaning to their lives, come to recognize the incongruity of entertaining the idea that apes may have a right to life on the grounds they share "98.5 percent of DNA" while withholding it from real, living, developing human children?
There's enough wrong with argument to fill the Marianas Trench, but the most obvious problem is that unlike protecting an ape, "protecting" not-yet-born children involves directly and formally oppressing women who are able to walk and talk sans an umbilical cord.

Remember how Gallagher was complaining a moment ago about giving lower organisms rights that conflict with the preferences of higher ones, and lamenting that some people are "denounced and driven from the public square" when they fail to agree with such determinations? And remember how she didn't like the idea of taking black people out of the heart of the civil-rights narrative, and inserting "the new victim d'jour"? Well, forget about all that: As long as we insist on the civil rights of fetuses -- as opposed to "new victims," like animals or women -- we can think of ourselves as moral, no matter how many obligations to other living beings we ignore, or which cities full of pregnant women we bomb. Like her sentimentalizing of the civil rights movement, Gallagher's handwringing over unborn life is notable -- and politically useful -- mainly for what and who it excludes.

Here's the punchline:
That guy Jefferson wrote a lot of great stuff, including this: "Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."

But in places like Spain, I suspect, they are so over worrying about that.
Spain, as I'm sure you know, is about three-quarters Catholic and accordingly has some of the most restrictive abortion policies in Europe.
|

The Natives Are Restless (by Phila) 

A spectre is haunting Santa Monica. Austin Hill explains:
While speaking with a friend who is a yacht broker in the affluent Santa Monica coastal region of Southern California, I asked “what do people in your circles have to say about the presidential election? Are they even talking about it? What do they say?”

“Yes, people are talking about it” my friend assured me. “It’s assumed that Obama will win. But if he doesn’t, there’s a fear that South-Central LA will erupt in riots, kind of like what happened after the trial of the cops that beat Rodney King in 1992.”
Not surprisingly, this confirms what Hill already suspected.
I see it in email messages from readers of this column. I hear it from listeners to my own talk radio program at Washington, DC’s 630 WMAL, and the many other talk shows I guest host around the country.
I suppose there'd be no sense in asking black Americans whether they intend to riot if Obama loses; they're hardly likely to be as honest and forthcoming as a white Santa Monica yacht broker. Besides, even if they answered in the negative, we all know how...impressionable they are; if they see a couple of their peers rioting, they won't be able to help themselves.

Obama knows this, of course, and that's undoubtedly why he's taking such pains to rile 'em up:
Think about it. On both implicit and explicit levels, Obama’s rhetoric suggests that the annoyances, the risks, the hardships and insecurities of your existence are the result of various injustices done to you, and that he alone can correct those injustices.

If a business executive earns exponentially more money than you do, this is an injustice and he will correct it. If you bought a house and are now having difficulty making the payments, this is an injustice and he will correct it. If you do not have “free healthcare,” this is an injustice and he will correct it. The fact that nuclear weapons exist in the world is an injustice, and he will correct it. If you purchased toys imported from China that turned out to be defective, that is an injustice and he will correct it (yes, he actually delivered a speech entitled “Safer Toys For Our Children” in Iowa last December, two days after Christmas). And if you believe, as he apparently does, that “rich people” just simply “have too much already,” well that is most certainly an injustice and he will correct it.
I'd be overjoyed if all this were true. But as far as I know, Obama isn't offering "free healthcare." Nor, sad to say, does he intend to send a cadre of Kalishnikov-wielding class warriors 'round to Ira Rennert's place. His campaign rhetoric on nuclear weapons is heavily qualified, and seems to me to favor redundant deterrence for the foreseeable future. While he did complain about "defective" Chinese toys, he's certainly not alone in that; even the Toy Industry Association has requested better regulation.

But facts are stupid things. When it comes to questions of race, we must be guided by fantasy: Obama is promising "his people" that they'll be fed on turtle soup and venison with a gold spoon, and we know what'll happen when he's rejected by real Americans for being a Muslim-Hindu-Marxist firebrand: days and nights of rioting and looting, during which no decent white woman will dare to venture out of doors. Four out of five yacht brokers agree!

Though Hill never uses the phrase, it seems clear that the problem here is the same sense of "black entitlement" that has congested our ghettoes with Welfare Cadillacs and our Ivy-League schools with sullen Ebonics majors straight outta Compton.
[I]t’s not difficult to imagine how anything short of an Obama presidency could be viewed by some in America as yet another injustice. And if Obama’s inevitable destiny is disrupted by something so trivial as the American electorate, this could be deemed an injustice that trumps all others.
I'm sure it's not difficult to imagine. I'm sure it's much easier than imagining that Hill's casual, basically approving invocation of racial animus and paranoia in "the affluent Santa Monica coastal region of Southern California" might undercut his theory that injustice is something blacks have invented to excuse their own failings. Like most racial theorists in his "circles," Hill demonstrates what he sets out to deny.
|

Girls in prostitution (by Suzie) 

     

         This post is the last in this weekend's trilogy on which girls deserve protection from predation. Through the current Carnival Against Sexual Violence, I learned about the documentary "Very Young Girls."
A man who has sex with an underage girl should be prosecuted as a criminal rapist. But there is a loophole: if the child accepts money in exchange for sex, the rapist is now a "john" and rarely is subjected to greater punishment than a fine. For the very same act, the girl is often prosecuted as a prostitute and sent into detention. The average age of entry into prostitution today in the United States is 13 years old.
         Thirteen? Really? Here’s one source, with more information.
         In June, the FBI arrested pimps in a nationwide network of child trafficking. Once again, there's talk of protecting innocence. Here’s more from the FBI in 2005, including congressional testimony.
Juveniles who become involved in sexual trafficking face a myriad of obstacles and enormous needs if they want to leave that life, including very basic needs such as safe housing, subsistence, and schooling. In addition, they may need drug treatment, medical treatment, and mental health services. They may have problems related to victimization prior to their life on the streets. Most cannot return to their family of origin, so they need help to prepare for independent living.
          Some feminists want prostitution treated like other work. In that case, I'd note that we have labor laws restricting work by children. 
 
|

Saturday, July 19, 2008

A Total Surprise (by Phila) 

Bruce Schneier links to an article which claims that the Nashville police are using Midazolam injections in order to calm "unruly" suspects.
While the Metro police had banned the use of Tasers for a time, they still used a controversial method to subdue unruly people, according to an I-Team report.

The city's policy to use the method, which calls for the injection of a drug into a person, came as a "total surprise" to people most would expect to know all about it.
Midazolam is allegedly indicated in cases of "excited delirium." Dr. Corey Slovis, Nashville’s emergency medical director, explains how to spot people who are suffering from this syndrome:
"I don't know if I would use the word diagnosing, but they are assessing the situation and saying, 'This person is not acting rationally. This is something I've been trained to recognize, this seems like excited delirium.'"
The problem is, "excited delirium" is not a recognized medical or psychiatric condition; the diagnosis tends to be applied posthumously to people who were unlucky enough to die while in police custody (cf. Patrick Lee, who died of "excited delirium" after being tased 19 times).

Also, it's safe to say that some of these people are going to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, which makes injecting them with Midazolam even more dangerous than usual. Certain blood-pressure drugs, antifungals, antibiotics, and other medications can have serious interactions with Midazolam, too; it seems as though this could make "assessing the situation" a bit harder than Dr. Slovis lets on. Add to this the fact that it's going to be difficult to inject unruly people safely unless you already have them restrained, and the argument for sedating suspects with Midazolam begins to seem pretty dubious.

Still, none of that is quite as disturbing as this:
The biggest side effect that is seen in more than 80 percent of those who are injected with Versed is amnesia.

The side effect raises the question of a person being able to defend themselves in court if they can't remember what happened.
|

A Moral Sense of the World (by Phila) 

Like all of our best cultural commentators, L. Brent Bozell III contrasts the hotheaded excesses of the Left and Right with the cool wisdom of the Center. The topic today is popular culture: on the Left, we have "nutty left-wing professors performing exotic Marxist autopsies on the imperialist dynamics of Donald Duck comic books." On the Right, we have "conservative academics" who are busy "teaching and writing about Homer the Greek poet," and refuse to lean down from this Parnassus long enough to guide us through moral crises like the popularity of Wall-E.

Don't drink that bottle of Liquid Plumbr yet, though; help is on the way!
Fortunately, there is Thomas Hibbs, a professor of ethics and culture at Baylor University — and a film critic for National Review Online.
What Hibbs has done, see, is he's written a book about film noir, which argues that despite the genre's dark themes, "there is a strain in many noir films of a quest to arrive at a moral sense of the world."

Well, yeah. It doesn't take much critical acumen to discover a preoccupation with morality in films like The Big Heat or On Dangerous Ground or The Reckless Moment or Act of Violence. I'm familiar with the conservative need to make art palatable by turning it into an ideological billy-club, but that tactic usually involves far more strenuous exegetical contortions ("The Incredibles is an attack on the Welfare State!"); this is simply a matter of representing films that are explicitly concerned with morality and justice as films that are implicitly concerned with morality and justice. (Which is apparently what Bozell hails as "interpretive talent.")

The inevitable sleight of hand comes with the assumption that this concern automatically dovetails with conservatism as it existed then, let alone now. On Dangerous Ground, for instance, is about nothing if not the attempt "to arrive at a moral sense of the world"; that moral sense, however, is utterly at odds with movement conservatism as set forth in rags like NR: A cop who routinely breaks the law in order to brutalize criminals is redeemed after he tries to protect a young murderer from a lynch mob. (To put it in terms Jonah Goldberg might understand, he's feminized by pity.)

Ayn Rand would've instantly recognized this film as "a glorification of depravity," in that it creates sympathy for a murderer and implies that he couldn't help his actions. As wrong as she is, she's more right than the likes of Bozell and Hibbs, who believe that they can claim neutral or nonconforming art for conservatism by invading and occupying it, and then use it as a base for incursions against whatever "secular and hedonistic (and often nihilistic)" cultural productions remain untransmuted by hard-right aestheticians into Triumphs of the Will.

Having uncovered decades of hidden Hollywood conservatism right where it occurred to him to look for it, Hibbs goes on to suggest that at long last, "Hollywood may be veering away somewhat from nihilism." Exhibits A through Y are The Passion of the Christ, which Bozell and Hibbs offer, with rare invention, as a path to understanding that the Nazis were bad.
Hibbs notes that the Romans saw their Jewish subjects as subhuman, an inferior race devoid of humanity....

"Indeed, the scenes of the Roman soldiers cackling with glee as they scourge Christ and rip hunks of skin from his body is most reminiscent of the depiction of the Nazi soldiers in 'Schindler's List.'"
No wonder it turned Hollywood on its ear, and earned full-throated acclaim from the Fucking Jews. And no wonder so many recent Hollywood films have religious overtones:
Hibbs cites everything from the Harry Potter series to "The Lord of the Rings" and Narnia to comic-book superhero films like the Spider-Man movies.
Bozell hails this as proof that "that moviegoers can use their own quest for redemption to drag some fraction of Hollywood out of the dark swamp of despair." But this notion of "a quest for redemption" seems to me to apply more to our current bumper crop of conservative hermeneuticists than it does to the average moviegoer (the box-office receipts of The Love Guru notwithstanding).

In his interminable gushing over The Golgotha Chainsaw Massacre, Bozell unwittingly hints that what one gets out of movies may have something to do with what one brings to them:
Unlike so many blood-spurting films where the viewer is encouraged to laugh or be dazzled at the mechanics of death, "The Passion" compels the viewer to feel the need for repentance, that this bloody sacrifice was both his fault (through his sins) and yet his hope for eternal life.
With that in mind, I believe I'll go and watch The Third Man, which I'm told is about the brutal crushing of postwar anarcho-capitalism by the nascent European Nanny State.
|

Friday, July 18, 2008

Personal Safety (by Phila) 

Having previously manufactured a pink Taser for gals (who like pretty little pink things!), and hosted a charity poker tournament for guys (who like card games and Playboy bunnies!), Taser International is intensifying its gender-obsessed marketing campaign:
Taser International's newest marketing technique: selling their stun guns in truck stops.

"Anybody's that's traveling does have concerns about personal safety. For the trucker away from his family, he might want one or think that his wife could use that while he's gone, or his daughter at college could use one," Taser exec Steve Tuttle tells the Toledo Blade. "It fits with our vision of getting our products into more mainstream stores."
Much as I like the idea of a Taser battle at a truck stop -- preferably in a haze of gasoline vapor -- I can't really approve of this development. Police and security personnel -- who are allegedly trained to use Tasers properly, and usually use them in public, while sober -- haven't exactly been modeling responsible use of the device (although at least some of the people they've irrationally tased were probably glad not to have been gunned down, or clubbed into a coma).

But ordinary citizens aren't trained at all, as far as I know. And they're perhaps less likely to understand that "nonlethal," in TI's sense, refers to the concept of the weapon, rather than to the certain outcome of using it.

Worse, TI's marketing efforts attempt to reinforce and exploit insecurities that have little to do with the actual violent crime rate in America (which remains quite low), but a lot to do with racial and psychosexual paranoia, and the relentless hyping of certain titillating types of crime in the media. These insecurities, I suspect, encourage more violence against women than Tasers will ward off. Which suggests to me that once again, women are being used as an alibi for the increased availability of weapons that are very likely to be used against them (surely rapists and stalkers will find some use for a Taser?).

On the bright side, we may someday be able to counter the threat posed by the sale of Tasers at truck stops by arming ourselves with a consumer version of Raytheon's Silent Guardian.

UPDATE: In comments, aka fredo provides a truly horrifying link on the "professional" use of Tasers.
|

"Obama is a feminist" (by Suzie) 



         That's the headline on a story in the Tampa Tribune about Barack's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, visiting Tampa. Thursday, she told an audience of mostly women that Obama had given her "Our Bodies, Ourselves."
Soetoro-Ng said he has "pretty continuously made strong statements on behalf of women" and backed legislation that particularly helps women, including the earned income tax credit and the Title IX legislation aimed at equalizing treatment of men's and women's college sports teams.
         Read the article here.

|

Roman Polanski & injustice (by Suzie) 



          Opening in theaters today is a documentary on the rape case against the director Roman Polanski. Thirty years ago, he was accused of rape, sodomy and giving alcohol and drugs to a 13-year-old. He pleaded innocent, but after evidence was found, he agreed to plead guilty to having sex with Samantha (Gailey) Geimer, in exchange for the dropping of other charges.
          Polanski, then 43, maintained the sex was consensual. Geimer said she told him no repeatedly. But even if she had said yes, Polanski knew she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. She had come to him to be photographed, and he manipulated her into taking off more and more clothing.
         He accused her mother of setting him up to be blackmailed. People continue to question the mother, as did this writer for the Denver Post. On an HBO forum, Geimer has spelled out the facts and asked people to stop blaming her mother.
         If you view all men as potential rapists, you’re labeled a man-hater. But if you don’t foresee a renowned, middle-aged director raping your 13-year-old, then you’re at fault, apparently.
          The Denver critic calls the film “a study of the effect of childhood tragedy on shaping personality,” but she’s referring to Polanski’s early life, not what happened to Geimer. (In addition to the rape, she had to deal with taunting at school and a media circus.)
           The director of “Wanted and Desired,” Marina Zenovich, says in an interview that she sees Polanski as “very human. … He’s not like — I can’t think of the male equivalent of Britney Spears.” That’s because there’s isn’t one. Lots of men in the entertainment world drink, do drugs, and sleep around, and the media doesn’t caricature them.
          About Polanski, Zenovich also says:
It’s not anybody else’s fault but his own, but I always come back to, 'How long do you have to pay for the crime?' He went through the system. He ended up fleeing because of what Judge Rittenband did. It’s very black and white. 
          If Polanski hadn’t raped a child, he would never have come before the judge. It would be more accurate to say the judge was going to throw out the plea deal, and Polanski fled because he didn’t want to go back to prison. He rejected “the system,” which includes an appeals process. He had the money and fame to make a good life for himself in France. 
          What would the sentence have been for an indigent man who raped a 13-year-old? What if he had a history with girls? (In Europe, Polanski had a relationship with Nastassia Kinski at age 15.)
          Like others, this article talks about Europe being less Puritanical than the U.S. What writers mean is that it’s more acceptable for men to have sex with teenagers. Perhaps so, but in France, the age of consent is 15, and Geimer was 13.
          This article, again like others, talks about “cultural attitudes toward age of consent laws,” ignoring the fact that Geimer said she didn’t consent.
          Women and girls pay a price for rape, the possibility of rape, and sexual harassment, a form of discrimination. I’d like Polanski to keep “paying” – whatever that means in his case – at least until he says he was wrong to rape a 13-year-old and then shift the blame to her and her mother.

|

Which girls deserve protection? (by Suzie) 



         The Associated Press reports:
Gons G. Nachman, 42, pleaded guilty in April to possessing child pornography after admitting that he had sex with 14- to 17-year-old girls while serving as a consular officer in Brazil and Congo and documenting the encounters in pictures and videos.
          I want to use this case and others to talk about societal attitudes toward men having sex with teenage girls.
          Nachman has asked for leniency, citing cultural differences. He says girls grow up fast in Congo, and their parents want to marry them off to older men with money. (I don't know his excuse for Brazilian girls.)
          This is akin to the old argument that human life is valued less in poorer countries. If girls have a harder life there, sleazy U.S. diplomats have no business making it worse. Even if what he says about the culture is true, he knew the girls were having sex with him under false pretenses. 
         He's hardly alone in his attitudes. Plenty of men rationalize sex with girls in poorer countries, whether as girlfriends, prostitutes or some combination of both. 
         Nachman's defense also goes to the heart of which girls deserve protection. This was illustrated in the movie “American Beauty,” in which 42-year-old Lester Burnham lusts after a “sexually aggressive” and “flirtatious” friend of his daughter, according to Wikipedia. Burnham feels bad that he almost “consummated” their relationship, not because she’s too young, but because he finds she’s not a tramp after all – she’s a virgin.
         Men cannot control themselves when teens dress provocatively or flirt with them. If a girl lies about her age, a man is blameless, no matter what the age difference. Men are the victims of these scheming sluts.
         This is what a lot of guys said in their comments to an article on Kenneth Liles, 36, who “was charged with unlawful sexual activity” with a 16-year-old in Tampa. The article continued: “The girl's mother saw her daughter having sex with Liles, a criminal arrest affidavit states.”
         Only a couple of readers suggested that men are capable of saying no. I didn't see anyone suggest that men may trick girls into bed. It’s always the girls who are tricking men.
         Liles was charged with sexual assault of a minor, a second-degree felony classified as rape by the court, according to records.
        Societal anger at child rape seems confined to the prepubescent, as I noted in a comment to Phila’s excellent post, in which he noted the division between those who are innocent and those who are not, those who need protection and those who should know better.
        Some people will argue that girls have agency, and they can make choices. I agree. I just wish all men understood that they can make choices, too.  
--------
         P.S. Nachman didn’t have sex just with girls. He acknowledges that he had sex with two women who applied for visas, but denies accusations he coerced them. Getting visas can be difficult enough without women getting the message that they need to offer themselves up to U.S. officials.

|

Friday Critter Blogging (by Suzie) 

This is a photo of Streaker at the Chiwawagaga site. I must resist the temptation to put my Chihuahua in a cute costume. I must. It would be wrong.
|

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Savage Child Rearing Advice 



Remember the post in which we all discussed what being "a real man" means? It's almost as if wingnut Michael Savage wanted to chip in to that conversation when he went on a rant about autism:

That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.'" Savage concluded, "[I]f I behaved like a fool, my father called me a fool. And he said to me, 'Don't behave like a fool.' The worst thing he said — 'Don't behave like a fool. Don't be anybody's dummy. Don't sound like an idiot. Don't act like a girl. Don't cry.' That's what I was raised with. That's what you should raise your children with. Stop with the sensitivity training. You're turning your son into a girl, and you're turning your nation into a nation of losers and beaten men. That's why we have the politicians we have."

Bolds are mine.

Notice how there is no autism epidemic but if there is it's the fault of the single mothers? Also, boys have to be brought up to properly associate "idiot" and "dummy" with being a girl. That's how Michael was brought up and it took!

And how does that link to our earlier discussion? I think it points out that the worst thing a boy might experience in that alternative reality inhabited by savages and Savages is that he would turn into something like a girl. That equals being a loser and a beaten man.

Now imagine being a girl and hearing that rant. What does it say to her?

|

The Housing Market Crisis 



Has become a general crisis in the financial markets, and the reasons have to do with lack of regulations in that market, the invention of new instruments (sub-prime mortgages, jumbo mortgages, Alt-As, all bundled, shredded and served like coleslaw to investors) with severe systemic risks and the desire by everybody and their uncle to pretend that those risks don't exist. The government also has some responsibility for the crisis, because the Bush administration used the housing market bubble to pretend that the economy is doing better than it actually is, just like the Clinton administration used the high-tech bubble for the same purpose. And market bubbles, they pop, just like soap bubbles do.

The latter amuses children, but the breaking bubbles in various markets hurt people, including children. The housing market slump hurts people who were led into believing that they can afford a house they really could not. It also hurts people who were gambling on that market and perhaps deserve to be hurt, and it hurts people who used their home equity to finance other consumption.

The latter has resulted in the odd concept of "negative equity," or the value of the equity being less than all the debt that has been taken against it. The value of a house is not an ATM, in short, and using it as one may well cause unpleasant surprises when house values plummet.

The underlying assumption on which this whole teetering tower of cards was built was the assumption that real estate prices would go on rising for the foreseeable future. When they did not we got the crash and the crisis. But note that the reason why prices stopped rising and started falling is mostly (though not completely) caused by the teetering tower itself. The foundations of proper regulation and proper audits and accounts were not there to stop the tower from collapsing, and once it collapsed it took that belief in ever-rising prices with it.

So what should the government do about all this? Should it intervene now when it did not earlier? Moral arguments can be made both ways, but the real concern now is with the overall economy and the way the financial markets will drag everything else down with them if someone doesn't prop up that house of cards. That "someone" is likely to be the tax-payer, however wrong that might seem from a moral point of view.

|

Read My Gender Gap Series 



Please, Washington Times reporters. It's written clearly and it's available for zero cost at my website. If you had read it you would not have written this inane and incorrect thing:

Summary: In an editorial about the pay gap between male and female workers, The Washington Times falsely asserted that "the relevant factors that affect pay -- occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked -- are ignored by those citing the wage gap." The editorial also asserted that "women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment" than on higher pay. In fact, a GAO study found that a pay gap persists even when controlling for work experience, seniority, education, industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure.

And not only a GAO study but literally hundreds of studies have found the very same thing. More about why a conservative paper would argue otherwise can be found in the third part of my series. The studies are discussed in the second part, and the first part lays out the basic economic theories.

I do get furious when people lie, you know, and ignoring generations of well-made studies and their results is lying. It also paints all economists with the stupid-brush.

|

Garden and Dog Blogging 






I found this picture while cleaning the garage. It shows Henrietta and Hank doing what they usually did: Hank pesters Henrietta and Henrietta tells her off. Or perhaps they are kissing? Not sure.

The picture was taken 2005 or earlier. You can get more details about my angel dogs and the garden, too, by clicking on it.

|

More Laura Nyro 






She deserves more fame.
|

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Déjà Vu All Over Again? 



I'm pretty sure Karl Rove has fled the country. So who is it who is advising McCain to attack the strength of his opponent? It sounds like Swift-Boating, but much sillier.

|

Worth Reading 



Open Left has a series of invited guest posts by feminists and womanists:

It is a great pleasure to promote the first invited post in our "mutual guest blogging" series on feminist and womanist perspectives on Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the race -- and why this matters to progressives. Thanks to our guest bloggers -- and to everybody who's helped work to make this happen!--Jon Pincus

The first is by Melissa McEwan and the second by Sara Robinson.

I think there might be more than those two posts but when I search Open Left the site wants me to sign up or put them as heirs in my will or something similar before revealing anything.

|

Iraq And Afghanistan Wars For Dummies 



We need that book, badly, and it should be read by all those who have been or are in charge of those wars. It should include answers to these questions:

"Why did the U.S. initiate two wars at the same time and is now hankering after a third simultaneous war?"

"How do these wars help in catching Osama bin Laden, given that he is probably in Pakistan?"

"Who benefits from the way these wars have been waged?"

|

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Fun With Biased Polling 



I recommend my statistics series for a deeper discussion on what polls mean. You can find it on the website given at the top of the blog.

But for a very, very bad example of polling, Lou Dobbs can't be beat. Here's today's question:

Do you find it outrageous that the Bush Administration refuses to give our Border Patrol agents the respect and support they deserve?
Yes
No

Internet polls of this kind are never based on random sampling, because those who respond are the ones who care enough to respond. Those who don't care that much will not respond. Besides the people who read, say Dobbs' website, are not a random sample of all Americans to begin with.

All this means that the polls on various websites tell us nothing what voters or web-users or Americans and so on think; only what those people who answered think. It's also quite possible to "freep" those polls so that one person can vote many, many times.

In short, such polls are garbage. But this particular poll would be garbage even if it used a random sampling scheme, because it employs a leading question. The word "outrage" leads the voter towards what he or she is supposed to feel about the lack of "respect" and "support" the Border Patrol agents "deserve." So you are told how you should think and then you are asked to agree with that, pretty much.

One reason why even proper polls on various topics (such as opinions about abortion) so often disagree in their findings is that the way the questions are worded does matter.
----
Added on July 16: Check out this FAIR post about how wording changes the conclusions of a poll even when the changes are quite subtle.

|

Real Men Lead 



I learned that from a post entitled "Go Green: 10 Reasons Real Men Go Green." That Real Men Lead is reason no 1.

If that sounds a bit like something Promise Keepers or Southern Baptists might say, well, it is. Only this time it's expressed as something progressive, having to do with the care of the environment.

If Real Men Lead, who is it that follows? Unreal men and women, I guess. But presumably all men want to be counted among the real ones, and that leaves only women (and perhaps children) as the followers.

What's funny about the post is that it's written by a woman. Tsk, tsk. Women aren't supposed to lead by writing posts. Neither are women supposed to define masculinity, as you will learn if you go to the home site of this post and read the comments.

|

More Political Pictures 



Check out this proposal for a New Yorker cover, one about the McCains. It's pretty close to a mirror image of the Obamas cover. Hat tip to watertiger.

And then from Think Progress:





The attached text notes that the billboard is seen as inappropriate by both political parties. Of course it's also hard to interpret, given that the 9/11 massacres took place during a Republican administration.

|

Anti-Discrimination, Bush Administration Style 



Believe it or not, this administration does worry about discrimination in employment, though it's not sex- or race-based discrimination. Those types don't really exist, according to the conservatives, because the employers are supposed to have the right to determine whom they hire without government intervention and because we all know that any individual, irrespective of gender and race, can just try to work harder and to negotiate better labor contracts with the GE or the IBM or the local McDonald's.

Instead, the Bush administration is worried about "discrimination" against people who don't want other people to have abortions or even the contraceptive pill. This, my friends, is how they define discrimination:

The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign "written certifications" as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion.

The proposal, which circulated in the department on Monday, says the new requirement is needed to ensure that federal money does not "support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law." The administration said Congress had passed a number of laws to ensure that doctors, hospitals and health plans would not be forced to perform abortions.

In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, the administration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of "religious beliefs or moral convictions."

The proposal defines abortion as follows: "any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

I have bolded the crucial bits in that quote. Note how wide-spreading the rule would be. It could make it impossible for a rape victim in a hospital to get emergency contraception. Given that the draft adopts the pro-lifers' definition of abortion even the routine contraceptive pills are seen as abortifacients.

Maybe this is a good place to point out that refusing to hire workers who will not perform the tasks legitimately required by the job is not discrimination. Yet the Bush administration uses "discrimination" in that odd meaning. According to their definition, a Christian Scientist opposed to all conventional medical care should expect to be hired by a hospital ER, and any refusal to hire that person would be religious discrimination.

That is just plain silly. That we don't see the proposed rule as equally silly is because of its abortion framing: As long as the refusal to provide appropriate medical care only touches women its absurdity is hidden. Not to mention that this rule gives the power to make medical decisions over a patient to any religious health care worker and not just those the patient has delegated the power to.

Yes, the hospitals and so on are expected to cater for the patient, too, by having a second person with no such religious qualms somewhere close by. In practice this means double-staffing. It also means that patients will be subjected to speeches about religion and to delays in getting the treatment they want.

Let's hope that this draft will remain a draft.

|

Monday, July 14, 2008

McCain The Neo-Feminist? 

John McCain has seen the light! He has become a spokesman for the women of this country, a feminist even. Granted, he still needs to find his sea legs on the issues specific to women, as this video demonstrates:






Mmm. Perhaps a little lost there? (Watch that again with the sound off. It's wonderful.)

Still, McCain's conversion is astonishing in its rapidity. It was only this April, after all, when he couldn't find the time to vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would have extended the time for women to pursue pay-discrimination suits, though he did have enough time to tell us that he would have voted against the bill.

What a difference a few months can make. Here are McCain's new views on women and pay discrimination:
We haven't done enough. We have not done enough. And I'm committed to making sure that there's equal pay for equal work. That there is equal opportunity in every aspect of our society. And that is my record and you can count on it.

Don't you just love that last sentence? Too bad that McCain's voting record doesn't support his new-found feminist principles, and too bad that it is that record which we should probably count on.


McCain's astonishing feminist conversion is nothing of the kind, of course, but both the usual move towards the middle, something which is expected at this stage of the election campaigns, and also an attempt to fish for the votes of Democratic women who supported Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. What is astonishing about all this is how clumsy McCain's attempts are, how little research and thought he appears to have put into the necessary play-acting and what all this tells about his views on women voters.

|

Today's Outrage: The New Yorker Cover 






It's seldom that the New Yorker is in the general news, except as the signifier of extreme high-browedness. But today it is, because of the cover depicting the Obamas in the White House.

My first reaction to the cover was that it obviously tried to ridicule the views of the extreme wingnuts concerning Obamas (that he's a terrorist Muslim, that she hates America etc.), but that it failed to do so. The reason for that failure is the same which made me once scrap a long funny piece about the wingnuts giving advice to America's mothers: I couldn't make any of the advice more extreme than what the wingnuts actually say.

In short, using exaggerations as a way into sarcasm about the wingnuts is almost impossible, and that should tell you how extreme they are.

Another way of saying that is Atrios' comment:

The New Yorker cover could have worked if had made more clear who it was satirizing (Fox news, the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh, whatever), or by being clever enough to provide the actual funny. As it is it's just a reflection of the Right's view of Obama, but there's nothing clever or funny about it. The cartoon could run as is on the cover of the National Review, also meaning to be "funny" but with a different target.

And the result is that both McCain and Obama have expressed strong outrage about the cover. Note that this is not because the cover was ridiculing the wingnuts, nope.

In that sense the joke certainly misfired.

|

Saturday, July 12, 2008

George Orwell, Christopher Hitchens and Turning the Cube 



Do you want to write about politics? Then go and get George Orwell's Essays and read them*. That was Katha Pollitt's recommendation in her In Depth interview on C-Span2, and I went out right after hearing her to get them. Well, as soon as morning arrived.

The essays are enjoyable reading and a very good guide on how to write clearly, simply and precisely. Writing clearly, simply and precisely on difficult matters is incredibly difficult, of course. Seeing it done made me think that I could do it, too, the way seeing art exhibitions or craft shows always makes me feel that I could do those things, too, even though I can't. That's the real miracle in doing something extremely well: It looks easy and obvious, but only because of all those years of work and training that precede it, that hone and simplify and clarify and strengthen until the work appears to come a whole circle back to obviousness, simplicity and clarity, but on a very different level.

George Orwell is one of those historical figures that both the right and the left want to declare as their own. He was firmly opposed to totalitarianism of all types which meant that he criticized both the Communists and the Fascists, and that's what gives the opening for interpreting him as either a liberal or a conservative. Still, he very clearly states in one of the essays that he was a supporter of Democratic Socialism.

The most famous living fan of Orwell's writings is Christopher Hitchens who has written a book on why Orwell matters. I think Hitchens would wish to be seen as the "Orwell of our era." But what would that mean? Is a man who copies the ideas and writing style of a man dead for 58 years truly the "Orwell of our era"? Whom did Orwell copy, then? There's an odd blindness in all that, like seeing one side of a cube and interpreting that as a fixed two-dimensional square. (Yes, the cube will be finally turned here.) Trying to be Orwell does not mean that one is then automatically the conscience of this generation, but the echo of the conscience of a totally different generation living different crises and witnessing different values.

The turning of the cube struck me as one way of explaining what was so delicious about Orwell's writing. His essays usually start straight and simple, with the accepted views on some then-current topic, as if he was drawing a familiar square for his readers. Once they all saw it clearly he then gently showed them that the square was only one side of a cube, and that by turning the cube a totally different face appearead, also square, but with a new interpretation of the issue. This turning can continue all through the essay and the conclusion then explains the cubeness of the issue.

All that is a way of exploring our blind spots, and Orwell did it extremely well. But it was as if he turned the cube only on the horizontal axis, not the vertical one, and that allowed some blind spots to remain. The essay "Inside The Whale," about Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer, offers an example of the latter. Orwell sees Miller's genius as the ability to write about the "ordinary man", the man of sleazy desires and great passivity, and such an ordinary man would use what Orwell calls "vulgar" language. "Vulgar" language and precise descriptions of sex in all sorts of "sleazy" settings are of course an integral part of the Tropic of Cancer.

Orwell wants the reader to identify with the unpleasant male character in the book, to really see the world from his point of view, and that is part of turning the cube. But he doesn't identify with the women who are being used in the book as if they were disposable toothbrushes. I don't think that he even sees that face of the cube at all.

A similar essay is the one about humorous British postcards ("The Art of Donald McGill", 1941), where Orwell almost gets it when he lists the ideas that repeatedly appeared in these postcards:

Sex. - More than half, perhaps three-quarters, of the jokes are sex-jokes, ranging from the harmless to the all but unprintable. First favourite is probably the illegitimate baby.
...
Conventions of the sex joke:
(1) Marriage only benefits women. Every man is plotting seduction and every woman is plotting marriage. No woman ever remains unmarried voluntarily.

...

Home life. - Next to sex, the henpecked husband is the favourite joke. Typical caption: "Did they get an X-ray of your wife's jaw at the hospital?" - "No, they got a moving picture instead."

Orwell could put all this down on paper and still continue the discussion without seeing anything at all odd about the hostility towards women in these jokes, about those little triggers that really describe women as the enemy in some ways. Instead he drifts away by following the "obscenity" angle** to the story:

A recurrent, almost dominant motif in comic post cards is the woman with the stuck-out behind. In perhaps half of them, or more than half, even when the point of the joke has nothing to do with sex, the same female figure appears, a plump "voluptuous" figure with the dress clinging to it as tightly as another skin and with breasts or buttocks grossly over-emphasized, according to which way it is turned. There can be no doubt that these pictures lift the lid off a very widespread repression, natural enough in a country whose women when young tend to be slim to the point of skimpiness.

Reading all this now is of course unfair, because we have the benefit of many decades of feminist writings to help us. But still. The idea that if only British women had been fatter the postcards would not have depicted them as all breasts and behinds is an odd stumble from such a clear thinker, and it's a stumble directly caused by not seeing that blind top (or bottom) face of the cube, the one in which we address questions such as why these humorous postcards seem to have been all geared towards a market of men or why there were so few postcards turning women's generalized anger into humor in a similar fashion.

Here's the connection back to Christopher Hitchens: He still writes about women as if they were forks or knives or gin bottles, something to make men's lives either easier or worse, and he still writes to an imaginary all-male audience. This seems a pity. Identifying with Orwell doesn't have to go to such extremes. Besides, I'm fairly convinced that Orwell would have removed that particular blind spot on his own over time. He doesn't come across as a misogynist at all, just a person in a particular place at a particular time with the particular blinders those gave him.

We all wear blinders of some type, and only the passage of time will show where they are. Orwell wore fewer than most and wrote better than most, too.

After all these thoughts about Orwell and Hitchens and the turning of the cube I realized that the current political writing still sees women only whenever it remembers to flip the cube vertically, and that turning of the cube is followed by an audible squeak. Future critiques of the political writings of our era may well point out that squeaking and clicking treatment of women, among many other similar disjointed treatments, as one of our very own blind spots. Perhaps the cube should really be a sphere?


----
*There are many editions of the essays and they don't always cover the same selection. One place to begin is here.
** Going deeper into the concepts of vulgarity and obscenity would have been a useful exercise there, too. It still is something worth doing, especially in the contexts where something called "locker room talk" is seen as too vulgar for women to hear but otherwise ok. The question why it's too vulgar for women, given that they usually perform major roles as objects of that talk is well worth thinking about.

|

We’re such a compassionate country (by Suzie) 



        The state of Florida has passed a law requiring businesses to give employees three days off if they've been sexually assaulted. (A similar law on domestic violence was passed last year.)
You can't assume all employers will have enough compassion to allow victims to take time off to seek court injunctions, medical care and counseling, among other possible needs.
          But the law doesn't apply unless the business has at least 50 employees. And employers don't have to pay the employee on those three days.
          Not surprisingly, California has a better law.

(Phila is off this Saturday but will return next week.)

|

Friday, July 11, 2008

Friday Critter Blogging: Dog Edition 



The first picture is of Tintti's ten-month old dog, Onni, looking for him at the house they are fixing up, after a pleasant swim in the ocean. You can see the evidence of the swim if you click on the picture. Onni is turning out quite a lot taller than anyone expected but every bit as sweet and charming as was obvious from the beginning.





The second picture is an early one of my angel dog Henrietta running through the snow, looking like a bunny rabbit with her ears flopping about. I think this was the first winter I had her, when she was around three years old and faster than a bunny rabbit.




|

Should we defend Cindy McCain from sexism? (by Suzie) 



          I posted below on a column by Amanda Erickson. She says black feminists are criticizing white feminists for not writing as much about sexism directed at Michelle Obama as they did about Hillary Clinton. 
"Michelle Obama is getting short shrift ... from the mainstream white feminists who were screaming and screaming about Hillary Clinton," said Andrea Plaid, a Brooklyn-based blogger who contributes to Michelle Obama Watch.
          Similarly, Mary C. Curtis takes feminists to task as if all voted for Clinton.  
          Erickson notes that feminist blogs have reported sexism against Obama, as has the National Organization for Women. I’d add the Women’s Media Center, whose founders include Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan, who have been criticized specifically.
           Perhaps sexism against Clinton has been more widely reported because she was a candidate and Obama is a candidate's wife, Erickson says. I’ve never read a political analyst that thought public opinion about a wife could win or lose a presidential race. Gail Collins weighs in on this. 
          Erickson quotes a Clinton supporter saying it’s unfair to expect her supporters to show the same enthusiasm in defending her former opponent and his wife. That leads me to the crux of this post: Should a feminist defend all women against sexism, no matter how she feels about the target? Yes, but we have limited time and energy. That's why I haven’t started a Cindy McCain Watch, and I’ve never posted before on the sexism against her.
         But there is sexism. When people call her a Stepford wife or Barbie, they play into the idea that women are to be judged on looks and demeanor. 
... it is clear that the feminist ideology of some women only extends as far as their favorite candidate. ... Why are so many women standing silent, and worse, abetting the demonization of another woman of substance?
          This quote comes from Tami at Racialicious, criticizing "mainstream feminists" who fail to discuss sexism aimed at Obama. But Republicans might say the same about feminists who don't defend McCain. Read what Susan J. Douglas says.       
     
|

In defense of white feminists (by Suzie) 



           Conservatives who oppose feminism have long said that white women are the most privileged people in the world. It bothers me that many progressive men and women echo this.
          Search the Internet for “white feminists,” and you'll see that we* have become synonymous with “elitists who don’t care about poor women or women of color.” Why would anyone want to work with us?
          Consider the Dear White Feminists letter:
I’m sick of us exercising our white privilege and then accusing our sisters of color of causing divisiveness when they refuse to submit to our racism. Mostly it’s unintentional racism by white women who want to believe that we are saving the world. But we are not. We’re oppressing and silencing the very people we talk so eloquently about being allies with. … We are the enemy and the oppressors of WoC.
          Race is not the only source of privilege. Therefore, we can't say all white women have more privilege than all women of color. Not all white women have money, for starters, and not all women of color are poor. Shouldn’t everyone get that by now?
           The idea that white feminists only want rights for themselves is a subset of a bigger idea that has been around a long time: Women must think of others first or else they are being selfish. Some women of color have argued it’s OK for white feminists to think only of themselves, but they should make it clear that they are talking only about white women. But anyone who cares only for herself is speaking only for herself, not all white women. Similarly, when a woman of color works for her own rights, there’s no guarantee that she’s helping all women of color, who are diverse in desires and needs, just like white women.
           I don’t know of any famous white suffragist or feminist who did not have some interest in poor women or women of color. This doesn’t let them off the hook for criticism, but it’s incorrect to say they never cared about anyone but themselves. 
          As an example, take Betty Friedan, who wrote “The Feminine Mystique.” Critics cite her as a white feminist who cared only about middle-class white women getting professional jobs. But Friedan had been a leftist, supporting unions and opposing war, before feminism. Whatever her many faults, you can’t say that she cared only about wealthy white women.
         Although many low-income women had to work outside the home, “the feminine mystique” still affected them. By the 19th century, a lot of people believed the ideal was to have a man earn enough so that his wife didn't have to work for money. Many poor people aspired to this, even when they could not achieve it.
         Opening professions to women did not just benefit middle-class whites. It also benefited middle-class women of color then and those who would reach the middle class later. I was a poor teenager in the 1970s, and feminism opened doors for me.
        I got back on this topic after reading Amanda Erickson, writing on the Swamp, the Chicago Tribune’s Washington bureau site. She quotes a professor saying that, in the fight over the 15th Amendment, black women sided with black men while white women opposed them. Actually, there were black women with mixed feelings, and white suffragists split over the issue, as I’ve written before. Erickson continues:
          The question of competing aims continued into the 1960s, as white women pushed for equal treatment in public life. They lobbied for equal pay and better representation in top corporate and government positions.
            African-American women, however, sometimes chose instead to link issues of race and gender, lobbying for better quality of life for families and the poor.
          It wasn’t that simple. There were strong disagreements, but these tensions did not all fall along racial lines. Feminists of all colors worked for reproductive rights, women’s health, paid maternity leave, affordable childcare, no-fault divorce laws, fair hiring practices, fair lending, equal pay, and an end to sexual harassment and other forms of sex discrimination in the workplace as well as in housing and education. They worked against rape and domestic violence.
          If we know our history, our assessments -- and criticisms -- will be more accurate.
----------
          *I use "we" guardedly. I have to include myself among white feminists, but hope my readers come from various backgrounds. 
       
|

Step 1: Know the body parts (by Suzie) 



      Some idiot came up with an idea for the Vagina Hero, a game based on Guitar Hero. Deeky does a good job picking apart this little bit of misogyny. I just want to add: The game control is patterned after a VULVA, not a vagina. The vagina is that tube-like thing inside. The vulva describes the outer parts.
      Here are just two reasons why adults might want to know the names of genitalia: No. 1, understanding different parts might help in bed.  No. 2, when you're talking to a health-care professional, you want to be accurate. 
     OK, class dismissed. 
|

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Blogging While Naked 



Playboy magazine is hoping to have some female bloggers pose for them:

Playboy has published profiles of nine women bloggers (loosely defined) - Xeni Jardin, Violet Blue, Julie Alexandria, Veronica Belmont, Amanda Congdon, Brigitte Dale, Sarah Lacy, Sarah Austin and Natali Del Conte - and asked readers to vote on which one is "sexiest." The winner will be asked to pose for Playboy.

Sarah Lacy, host of Yahoo's TechTicker, is described respectfully as a "curvy brunette." Lacy says that Playboy told her about the poll before it was published but said nothing about their plans to ask the winner to pose nude for the magazine. Lacy says if she wins she won't accept the offer to go nude.

The story doesn't tell us if all the nine bloggers were asked to participate, if they were informed about the possibility of naked posing and so on.

What I found really interesting were the comments to this story. It's always salutary to go and read what people truly think about such issues. I had fun making a short list of how to defend Playboy before I even started reading (We all know what Playboy does for business so big deal. Look, men like to look at women's tits so fuck you feminazis. Evolutionary psychology has made sex like this. Don't you have anything to write about that is really feminist and serious? Big deal; besides, my tits are bigger. Well, women have no brains so we might as well look at their asses.)

The number of quite feminist comments was a most pleasant surprise.

|

On Long Posts And Girl Artists 



I want to write a long post on the argument by a British art critic that there has never been a great woman artist and never will be one, either. My argument requires a long post, it really does. But do people read long posts? And does a long post strike them as profoundly as sound bites of the above type?

Here's the real problem: It's very easy to make a statement like the one above. It's much harder to answer it, because I can't just go: Fuck off, asshole.

Well, I can, because ultimately the meaning of the original argument is no different from that, on some emotional level. But this arguing game is rigged to benefit those who make outrageous claims with no evidence and those who think "nuances" are misspellings for "nuisances". It's rigged to benefit those who have never read an art history book about the lives of female artists, and it's also rigged to benefit those who have never asked themselves what (and who) defines "great" art as opposed to some other type of art and whether that definition in itself might not have something to do with the cultural and gender-specific values that give birth to all art (and abort some of it).

|

Rove, Rove, Rove Your Boat 



Karl Rove has refused to testify:

Karl Rove, President Bush's longtime political guru, refused to obey an order to testify before a House Judiciary Committee hearing Thursday.

Karl Rove's lawyers says he is immune from a congressional subpoena.

Rove's lawyer asserted that Rove was "immune" from the subpoena the committee had issued, arguing that the committee could not compel him to testify due to "executive privilege."

The panel subpoenaed Rove in May after his lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, made clear the former White House deputy chief of staff would not appear voluntarily.

Luskin responded immediately that Rove still would not appear, prompting a threat of prosecution from the Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, and Rep. Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat who chairs the subcommittee on commercial and administrative law.

"A refusal to appear in violation of the subpoena could subject Mr. Rove to contempt proceedings, including statutory contempt under federal law and proceedings under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives," Conyers and Sanchez wrote.

"We are unaware of any proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal to even appear today as required by the subpoena," Sanchez said Thursday morning when Rove failed to show up. "The courts have made clear that no one -- not even the president -- is immune from compulsory process. That is what the Supreme Court rules in U.S. v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones."

This is not surprising, of course. It's how the concept of "executive privilege" has been used by the Bush administration as meaning that no laws need to be followed if they happen to displease someone in the administration.

|

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

The Way To Pick Prezdents 



You won't believe this, but the recommended way still is to try to find someone who is no smarter than you at all. A good way is to try to imagine whom you'd most like to have a beer with. In 2000 it was an ex-alcoholic, by the way. Or so we were told.

Now it's the guy who tells jokes about killing Iraqis Iranians with lung cancer. That would be McCain. His joke made the pundits tell us that this joking shows he's just a reg'lar guy, someone we would like to have at our dinner table. Aftah all, we all like to tell jokes about killing the people we were supposedly trying to liberate and all innocent people. Don't we?

Here's the interesting political discussion on McCain's joke about why the increased exports of American cigarettes to Iran are a good thing: Because it kills a lot of them:





Now of course it was a stupid joke. We all understand that. What I'm irked about is the idea that telling stupid jokes makes you a better candidate for prezdenting. Remember how it turned out last time?

I'd prefer a president who is loads smarter than me, someone I would hesitate to have a beer with in case I'd be so awe-struck that I spilled it all on that person's outfit or something. Being the president of the United States is a demanding job and not every Joe or Jane Schmoe should seem qualified for it.

McCain doesn't know how Social Security works, either, as shown in this clip:





If knowing nothing is the way to elect a good prezdent, get your rowing boats ready for a quick escape.
----
Added later: I got the country wrong at first. Thanks to swampcracker in the comments for pointing it out. Aren't you glad I'm not running for prezdent?

|

Deep Thought For The Day 



The United States only has one party, with two wings: The extreme right wing and the slightly-less extreme right wing. The latter is also the polite wing, the one which folds whenever the other one wishes it to fold.

No wonder that this plane has so much difficulty flying without turbulence.

|

A Real Fox 



That's Fox News. A recent story by a journalist speaks about some of the stuff they do in the name of freemarkettoughcompetition. A lot of it sounds like extortion and racketeering to my innocently pink ears, but I'm sure it's quite all right:

Like most working journalists, whenever I type seven letters — Fox News — a series of alarms begins to whoop in my head: Danger. Warning. Much mayhem ahead.

Once the public relations apparatus at Fox News is engaged, there will be the calls to my editors, keening (and sometimes threatening) e-mail messages, and my requests for interviews will quickly turn into depositions about my intent or who else I am talking to.

And if all that stuff doesn't slow me down and I actually end up writing something, there might be a large hangover: Phone calls full of rebuke for a dependent clause in the third to the last paragraph, a ritual spanking in the blogs with anonymous quotes that sound very familiar, and — if I really hit the jackpot — the specter of my ungainly headshot appearing on one of Fox News's shows along with some stern copy about what an idiot I am.

...

Fox News found a huge runway and enormous success by setting aside the conventions of bloodless objectivity, but along the way, it altered the rules of engagement between reporters and the media organizations they cover. Under its chief executive, Roger Ailes, Fox News and its public relations apparatus have waged a permanent campaign on behalf of the channel that borrows its methodology from his days as a senior political adviser to Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

At Fox News, media relations is a kind of rolling opposition research operation intended to keep reporters in line by feeding and sometimes maiming them. Shooting the occasional messenger is baked right into the process.

It sounds like that book All The King's Men or perhaps like the Godfather movie. It also offers some ideas why the press has acted so meekly when it comes to Republicans of various ilk. Wouldn't it be great fun (and also educational) if some very brave reporters did more study on that topic? They'd have to be very brave, true, and also completely unaffected by the loss of their careers etcetera.

The most recent installment of all this has to do with the way Fox News photoshopped the faces of journalists they call attack dogs. The forehead of one was lowered, his nose was widened and so on. All just innocent and clean fun, except that the viewers were not informed that the faces had been photoshopped. Like this:






Why does any of this matter? Do you have friends or family who watch Fox News? I have some, and Fox News is on in every room of the house, all day long. It's a background to all daily living, the only source of "news", almost like your private mesmerizer. What's more worrying is that some people who watch Fox all the time don't watch any other news sources. Over time they drift into a different dimension altogether, a dimension in which New York Times writers really do have the heads of Neanderthals, a dimension in which it was the Iraqis who caused the 9/11 massacres. How are we going to have a public conversation on anything with people who don't have the same evidence and facts as the rest of us?

The odd thing is that for the Fox strategy to work all the other news stations must act as the straight guy in a joke. Once everybody starts using the war propaganda model Fox is cooked. But so are all the consumers of news. Sad, isn't it?

|

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Where In The World Is Dick Cheney? 



And what is his precise job in the Bush administration? That has been up for some debate for a while, but it seems that he had his fingers in many a pie:

Seeking to downplay the effects of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed to delete references about the consequences of climate change on public health from congressional testimony, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.

The former official, Jason K. Burnett, said that White House was concerned that the proposed testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might make it tougher to avoid regulating greenhouse gases.

The account, described by Burnett in a July 6 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, conflicts with the White House explanation at the time that the deletions reflected concerns by the White House Office of Science and Technology over the accuracy of the science.

Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, described that Cheney's office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC's original draft testimony removed.

"The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) ... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change," Burnett said in the letter to Boxer.

And what do the administration insiders say about this?

Megan Mitchell, a spokeswoman for Cheney's office, said that the office doesn't comment on internal deliberations. "The interagency review process exists so that agencies and offices can comment and offer their views," she wrote. "This is no different than in any other administration."

What you don't know can't hurt you, right? I guess that's the rationale for keeping the possible health effects of global climate change hidden.

|

From the LOL Files 



Katha Pollitt gave a fascinating interview in the In Depth series about writers on C-Span2 (You can see it at 9 am on July 12). You should watch it, especially the bit in the middle where she states that she reads this blog and calls me "wonderful"! Katha Pollitt is not only a fabulous writer and thinker; she also has excellent taste in her blog readership. Mmm.

Anyway, that's not the LOL part, though you may laugh at me if you wish. It's good for your spleen. What I found funny is that Rush Limbaugh actually noted the interview in his talk show:

POLLITT: The word "feminism" has been I think successfully demonized by the media. So that, for example, the word "feminazi" -- which was, I believe, a coinage of Rush Limbaugh; that distinguished sociologist and political theorist.


RUSH: Thank you.

POLLITT: I remember the first time I heard that word, I could not believe it. And yet that has become a standard of verbal, you know, locution that you hear all the time, used like it's a word. So I think the word... Many people are very afraid of the word.

RUSH: It's an accurate word. The reason it's become a word -- and it has become a word; it's in the dictionary now -- is because it's accurate, and I am a "noted sociologist and political theorist." I thank her for pointing that out.

I like the use of the term "accurate" there. What is the word "accurate" about?

Never mind. Last night I was thinking of a variant of this question:

Suppose that the apocalypse had taken place and that the only two survivors in the world were you and Rush Limbaugh. Would you cross the continent to find him?

|

The Proper Study For Women Is Women. Discuss. 



The post below didn't cover all the thoughts I had on Trubek's article, because I wanted to leave it short enough for reading on hot and muggy days. But some of those unwritten thoughts want to be written out, so here they are:

Remember this quote from Trubek's piece? I have bolded the bits I want to talk about:

I did my own tally. From May 2007 through May 2008, Harper's published 232 men and 51 women (a ratio of about 4.5 to one) and The Atlantic published 158 men to 49 women (a ratio of about three to one). In 2008, The New Yorker has published 185 men and 51 women (about 3.5 to one). Things are not getting much better.

As disheartening as those statistics are, closer inspection of what women do publish in such magazines makes the disparity even more disturbing. Many of the women's contributions are not features. (At The New Yorker, they might be a Talk of the Town piece, a poem, a cartoon, or a dance review.) And many are about being a woman. For example, the March 2008 issue of The Atlantic contains three substantial pieces by women. One, by Eliza Griswold, is both political and reported, and it does not integrate her personal experience. But the other two use personal experiences to make claims about women's lives. And in an almost absurd twist, both argue that women should start settling for less.

I hardly know where to start unraveling the brain-knot I have developed on this topic. First, note that women very often are viewed as an interest group in political and sociological writing, sort of like unionized carpenters or like carpenter ants or like people from some tiny town in Alaska. It's important that this interest group has a voice out there -- or so I imagine the editors musing -- and thus it's necessary to employ a woman or two, to write on the topic of Women.

Because of this weird equivalence, one woman is plenty! After all, we wouldn't want more than one unionized carpenter (or carpenter ant) on the opinion pages of our largest newspapers! And of course the women writers are then expected to write about women's issues. That's what they are there for.

But notice something funny here? Now the market for women writers has shrunk to almost nothing, and the reasons are not necessarily evilly misogynist.

That's the second part of my knotted thoughts on this topic, that IF we confuse the gender of a writer with the representation of that gender we might get a very tiny market for women who write. That whole confusion is built on that sexist assumption that women are like carpenter ants, but no additional sexism is necessary to get to an astonishing conclusion (and my third point):

Once the market for women writers has been shrunk into a doll-house size, new entrants find employment hard to find. Unless what? Unless their schtick is to hate other women!

Just think about it. The editors have already filled that one job where the woman is supposed to "represent" women's points of view in her writing. But they might be very interested in someone who wants to bash those points of views, as discord is good for readership and viewership numbers. Only the basher has to be a woman, too, for diplomatic reasons.

I'm quite pleased with the story I present above. It's naturally exaggerated, for the sake of pedagogical clarity. There are women writing on other issues, too, for example. But the idea that "women" should be discussed and debated is almost universally accepted in the media, and the people who should do that discussing and debating should be women so that men don't come across as sexist assholes all the time.

Why don't we discuss and debate the topic "men"? That, my sweet readers, is a rhetorical question, but I hasten to answer it anyway: Because it's silly to assume that billions of men all have the same points of view. It's equally silly to assume that about billions of women but it's sort of easier to do if you view women from the outside as exotic carpenter ants.

My thought knot is almost unraveled. The final part has to do with the fact that women indeed are more likely to write on sexism and misogyny than men, for obvious reasons, and that if women don't bring up those issues in the media they will not be brought up very often. Sigh. It's not clean work, this feminist writing, and it's poorly paid, too. Once I fix the problems I can concentrate on my Magnum Opus on how to garden while losing pounds and having great sex, too. No carpenter ants involved, promise.

|

Monday, July 07, 2008

The Silent Thunder 



That is your koan for the day.

I have a few favorite puzzles in my head, the types of questions which entertain me on rainy days or in the dentist's waiting room or while at a boring meeting. One of those is this paradox: According to various anti-feminist science writers girls are good with words and boys are good with numbers and pinning butterflies against the wall and so on, and this is why there are so few women in hard sciences, so stop complaining about it you nasty feminazis. But where are all those women so eloquent and good with words? That's the interesting puzzle.

An example of these vanishing women is given in Anne Trubeck's piece entitled The Queens of Nonfiction*. A snippet:

Ira Glass, host of the radio and television program This American Life, claims that nonfiction is the most important and impressive art form of our day: "We're living in an age of great nonfiction writing, in the same way that the 1920s and 30s were a golden age for American popular song. Giants walk among us, Cole Porters and George Gershwins and Duke Ellingtons of nonfiction storytelling."

To commemorate and canonize this golden age, Glass compiled an anthology of some of the best nonfiction writing. The paperback original, published last fall, with proceeds benefiting a nonprofit tutoring center, received prime display space in many bookstores. Its title: The New Kings of Nonfiction.

Huh? Glass is a trailblazing icon of alternative, indie culture, a very with-it, 21st-century guy. What was he thinking? Why did he choose a gender-specific title for his book?

snip

A few years ago, two women — Ruth Davis Konigsberg, a writer and former editor at Glamour, and Elizabeth Merrick, director of a women's literary reading series — tallied the ratio of male to female contributors at those four magazines on their own Web sites. The numbers called attention to a significant gender disparity. According to Konigsberg, on womentk.com, during a 12-month period (from September 2005 to September 2006), there were 1,446 men's bylines and 447 women's bylines. At Harper's, the ratio was nearly seven to one, at The New Yorker four to one, and at The Atlantic 3.6 to one.

I did my own tally. From May 2007 through May 2008, Harper's published 232 men and 51 women (a ratio of about 4.5 to one) and The Atlantic published 158 men to 49 women (a ratio of about three to one). In 2008, The New Yorker has published 185 men and 51 women (about 3.5 to one). Things are not getting much better.

As disheartening as those statistics are, closer inspection of what women do publish in such magazines makes the disparity even more disturbing. Many of the women's contributions are not features. (At The New Yorker, they might be a Talk of the Town piece, a poem, a cartoon, or a dance review.) And many are about being a woman. For example, the March 2008 issue of The Atlantic contains three substantial pieces by women. One, by Eliza Griswold, is both political and reported, and it does not integrate her personal experience. But the other two use personal experiences to make claims about women's lives. And in an almost absurd twist, both argue that women should start settling for less.

I love the way that quote ends, because I have for long observed the de-feminizing (sort of like de-licing) that is going on at Atlantic Monthly. It started with a few new editors and the installation of Caitlyn Flanagan and it seems to have gone on mercilessly ever since, so that the Atlantic is now the go-to-place for really good examples of woman-blaming and for answers to the old question What Ails The Women.

But to return to Trubek's piece: She makes a point which the anti-feminist science popularizes never address within the basic theory they use for women and hard sciences, the one which argues for different genetic talent distributions. Instead, trying to explain the scarcity of women in the field they supposedly ace requires drawing on one of the other explanations in their tool kits. Male aggression and competitiveness, say. But of course then one wonders why that can't be used to explain what goes on in the hard sciences, too. Why hit women with two different hammers?

I'll leave the answer to that for you to contemplate. Trubek takes all the possible explanations for the vanishing writer women more seriously (probably because she hasn't spent so much time hearing them already), and largely goes for the gendered division of labor as the explanation why the Daring Boy Reporters Infiltrating Al-Qaeda (to make up an example she didn't use) are not Daring Girl Reporters (though a burqa would be an advantage there if Al-Qaeda ever decided to admit women):

Also like Glass, Boynton celebrates how this generation is reinventing "the way one gets the story. … They've developed innovative immersion strategies (Ted Conover worked as a prison guard for his book Newjack and lived as a hobo for Rolling Nowhere) and extended the time they've spent reporting (Leon Dash followed the characters in Rosa Lee for five years)."

That may be the rub — especially considering the self-described lives of Tsing Loh and Gott-lieb: Female writers are busy raising children. It is hard to climb Mount Everest or become a hobo when you have to pick the kids up from school every day at 3:30.

Speaking about paradoxes worthy of contemplation, have you noticed my recent posts about religion telling women that they shouldn't be bishops and that they really should submit to their husbands and to focus on being wives and mothers? Yet when people like Trubek write about the gendered division of labor we are all expected to act astonished (astonished!) that women choose to do such things, all by their little selves. They just don't want to climb Mount Everest in the search of a good story, to be then crowned the Kings of Nonfiction (and also to be blamed for child abandonment if they happen to be mother-women).

And however hard editors work to find women who'd write about nonfiction topic, alas, they cannot be found. They are all hiding, in Plain Sight.

I'm not trying to release women from any responsibility for failing to submit as much as men do. Of course women should submit more stories. The trick is to stop thinking that they aren't good enough. Have a look at David Brooks' columns in the New York Times, and your heart will soar with confidence. When the rejections come, start collecting them by the type and frame the guest bath with them. One day all your visitors will get a good laugh while sitting there, considering that it's the bathroom of the winner of the Nobel Prize in literature. Well, thinking that way helps.
----
*Trubek's column can be read for five days without subscription. I guess that means until 7/9/08.

|

Deep Thoughts About Garage Cleaning 



I did some garage cleaning yesterday, and now feel morally righteous. Why is that? The reason must be something not-very-nice, because when I really act morally I don't feel that good.

In any case, I found some mathematical manuscripts of mine there, all shredded by mice to make a comfy nest for their babies, and there's a deep message in that, too. Maybe seeing all those integral signs on the nest walls made the mouse babies ever so good in the hard sciences?

And the newly empty garage space! The empty space is the important part, just as old Lao Tse said. Also the newly washed garage windows, though Lao Tse probably said nothing about that.

|

If First You Fail Then Try Again 



For some weird reason that insists to be the title of this post. What does it think it's saying here? If you fail to get raped, try again, maybe? Not sure.

What I'm writing about is this from Shoot The Messenger:

We conducted a pre-interview with Tracie who writes about sex and pop culture for Jezebel under the name "Slut Machine." When you click on "Slut Machine" you are linked to her personal blog that regales her readers with "no detail left behind" accounts of her sexual experiences.
Moe writes about politics and sex as well and combines pop culture with it all and was not available for a pre-interview. Tracie assured us she would be cool with anything we talked about in the feminist, political arena, that she was an expert on China, and that they had been talking a lot about rape lately.
They were emailed a show description with links to past interviews and we were all set.

I don't know if they came to the show drunk, or just ended up drunk by the time they hit the stage, but what I do know is that the discussion that ensued was deeply disturbing to me for a few reasons:

Because they had no regard for the people who came that night and paid money to hear them speak.
They do not understand the influence they have over the women who read them, nor do they accept any responsibility as role models for young women who are coming of age searching for lifestyles to emulate.

Even as one young woman who attended the show voiced her disappointment on her own blog, when Moe and Tracie commented on the entry, she was so excited that she backpedaled her criticism.

Here are the two relevant clips. (You can get the whole interview here.):








I can see how outrageously funny it might be to say that guys who are not considering rape are pussies or how coitus interruptus works as well as a condom, especially against venereal disease. I can even appreciate the shock value of something like that. And the world-weary attitude is a time-honored one to take. Christopher Hitchens does the male version really well, for instance.

At the same time, it's sort of dangerous to imply that women who get date-raped are not just intuitive enough to sniff out potential rapists. This used to be called victim-blaming; a pretty safety blanket for those who think it then can't happen to them.

It's also dangerous not to appear to know the facts about contraception and the incidence of rape and so on.

Now, I'm all for playing the game, if you wish. But if you pick up a sport of some kind, say, boxing or casual sex, you really should learn the rules and practice the moves and know what to anticipate beforehand. Had I gone to my karate sparring matches completely unprepared I would have been whupped so bad. So yes, you can play, but first learn what the game is, what the offense consists of and what your defense should look like. These ladies are not telling you that part.
----
I should add that I like lots of the posts on Jezebel, and that this post is not intended as an indictment of the blog. Or as an indictment of anything, really. See how meek I am?

|

Sunday, July 06, 2008

An Act of War (by Phila) 

The Right blogosphere has been very excited, lately, about reports that members of the Mexican army "invaded" a home in Phoenix and murdered its occupant (who appears to have been a drug dealer). The initial impetus for this story came from wingnut radio host (and former congressman) J.D. Hayworth, who got the story from Mark Spencer of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association. Spencer backed his theory up with a hearsay report that appeared in internal memos from the Phoenix Police Department, which he posted online (apparently in defiance of department policy).

Spencer's claim was then picked up by Fox News, which helpfully included a link to Hayworth's interview. Soon enough, bloggers were announcing that the Mexican Army had crossed the border to invade Phoenix, and calling it "an act of war."

As the story reverberated through hundreds of empty heads, it got weirder and more outrageous. All-American Blogger, for instance, concluded that "Mexican drug cartels are hiring members of the Mexican military to come across the border with full tactical gear and kill Phoenix police officers in their own homes," [emphasis added] and also informed Free Republic's elite cadre of revolutionaries and dialecticians that the "Mexican Military [is] Raiding The Homes of Phoenix Police Officers."

Both the ICE and the Phoenix PD have denied that any of the suspects were members of the Mexican military. However, Hayworth's radio station has phrased the denials in such a way that they'll confirm the darkest suspicions of immigrant-hatin' paranoiacs:
Phoenix police also did not confirm whether the men were from the military despite internal documents showing that they were.
In fact, these "internal documents" show only that one of the suspects claimed to be a member of the Mexican military. However, by cutting out that attribution, it's easy enough to represent it as the secret, publicly disavowed belief of the Phoenix PD.

And of course, official denials pose no problem at all for those who wish to believe this was an incursion by Mexican military personnel. On the contrary, the denials prove that the story is basically correct...or better yet, from the standpoint of emotional satisfaction, that the situation is much worse than they're letting on. This is the sort of narrative for which only two types of evidence exist: compelling and overwhelming.

Which is why stories like this one put the White House in something of a bind. If it denies that the Mexican military is crossing the border to murder American citizens, it's part of the conspiracy. And if it claims to be concerned, any action it takes that fails to satisfy the "border security" crowd's bottomless appetite for authoritarian brutality, bigotry, and stupidity will be rejected as capitulation or worse.

In my more dour moods, I assume that Bush's ability to enrage the Left still commands some superstitious respect among the gun hoarders and hyperpatriots and racists whom the Administration has played for suckers, even as a steady diet of unfalsifiable rumors and violent rhetoric brings their hysteria and hatred closer to the boiling point. It's easy to imagine things deteriorating once a more..."traditional" enemy of America takes office.
|

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Totally Crazy (by Phila) 

Kathryn Jean Lopez:
A totally crazy Saturday-morning thought: Wouldn't George W. Bush make an awesome high-school government teacher? Wouldn't it be something if his post-presidential life would up being that kind of post-service service? How's that for a model? Who needs Harvard visiting chairs and high-end lectures? How about Crawford High? (Or wherever?) Reach out and touch the young before they are jaded, or break them of the cynicism pop culture and possibly their parents have passed down to them.
Unless the last eight years were a horrible dream, George W. Bush weakened restrictions on air pollution under the Clear Skies Act, turned forests over to loggers under the Healthy Forests Initiative, detained prisoners indefinitely in the name of the law, tortured people in the name of civilization, censored scientists in the name of objectivity, alienated allies in the name of security, and is occupying another country in the name of freedom.

About the only thing he could possibly do to reduce American cynicism, at this point, would be to turn himself in at the nearest police station. (A totally crazy Saturday-afternoon thought, I know, and just about as plausible as K-Lo's fantasy.)

Anyway, while we're waiting for Bush to embark on his life of "post-service service," we mustn't forget to sneer at people who praise Jimmy Carter for building houses.
|

Obama, abortion and illusions (by Suzie) 



      I was leisurely catching up on Shakesville last night when I saw people commenting on how feminist blogs are failing to discuss Obama's recent comments on abortion. Tsk, tsk, I thought. Then: Oh, damn, that's me. 
      I hope no one thought that I had the automated system replace "serious issues" with "Chihuahuas" yesterday. Automation was involved, however. I often write my posts in advance and schedule them for Friday, my usual blogging day.
     I can't keep up with the progressive (and I mean that in two senses of the word) disappointments over Obama. (See this NYT editorial.) Clinton supporters understood that she is a politician, and we knew her positions. But a lot of progressives thought that Obama was different, that he was above partisan politics, that he shared their views. 
     Some thought the same of Bill Clinton before he was elected president, and they ended up feeling angry and betrayed by some of his policies and actions. This colored some people's reaction to Hillary's race for the nomination. Now the cycle is repeating itself with Obama.
      I wish we could break free from the media game of building up people and then tearing them down. I don't mean that we shouldn't discuss Obama's faults, or problems with his policies. I mean that people shouldn't have turned him into the next American idol because that guaranteed disappointment would follow.
      I also see parallels with people hoping that Michelle will straighten out Barack on certain issues. Who knows. Is she a feminist?
"You know, I'm not that into labels," Michelle Obama said in the interview. "So probably, if you laid out a feminist agenda, I would probably agree with a large portion of it," she said. "I wouldn't identify as a feminist just like I probably wouldn't identify as a liberal or a progressive." 
          As an adult, I've always been to the left of our presidents. For me, this election is like many others: I'll vote for a person who can win and who comes closest to my views, knowing that I need to keep working on other issues that he won't support.
 ---------   
        For interesting comments on Obama and abortion, Shakesville has a good discussion. You also may enjoy this post on faith-based organizations at Pam's House Blend. I'm looking forward to a fundamental Christian group training a pagan nonprofit to run a preschool program.

|
Three Intimations.
I.
The hydrangea tree blooming over the old graves on the rise in the cemetery are the only flowers there. Bent and twisted by the winds and winter, there isn’t a time it wasn’t there. Afternoon wind.
II.
There is nothing whiter than the evening lychnis at dusk. Dry summer.
III.
So still tonight the moonlight is the loudest thing.

Anthony McCarthy: 1978
|

Noted Without Comment (by Phila) 

The latest findings:
A study was conducted to assess whether individual differences in sexual activity during the past 30 days, in particular penile–vaginal intercourse (PVI; which is associated with measures of relationship quality), are related to the perception of the facial attractiveness of unknown men. Forty-five women reported the frequency of a variety of sexual behaviors and rated the facial attractiveness and friendliness of 24 men. Women who reported more frequent orgasm from masturbation rated men as less friendly. This finding might be reflective of the more anti-social attitude associated with more frequent masturbation. The results also show that women who engaged more frequently in most kinds of sexual behavior, not only PVI, considered unknown men to be less facially attractive. That is, individuals who engage more frequently in a variety of sexual behaviors with their partner perceived unknown men as less attractive and thereby may be less susceptible to the lure of other (or if the only sexual behavior is masturbation, any) men.
|

Supply-Side Shortages (by Phila) 

Somehow, Terry Easton has gotten wise to our plans:
You would think that this story is right out of science fiction. But the facts appear to be that the US Democrat-controlled Congress intends to destroy the Republican middle class with $11 per gallon gasoline.

The Democrats’ base -- wealthy white “limousine liberals”, and very poor people -- won’t be harmed, but the families who live in suburbia will be devastated.
Easton left out a few important details. It's not just the Republican middle class we're after; we also need to destroy hungry seniors, whose traditional values pose an obstacle to the acceptance of mandatory same-sex marriage. Underprivileged children and the disabled are another target (Peter Singer absolutely insisted on it, and you know how hard it is to say "no" to him). Higher gas prices will also thwart efforts to control malaria, which will be a fitting tribute to the spirit of Rachel Carson.

Then there are cabbies. How are we supposed to create a socialist wonderland while counterrevolutionaries like these are able to buy food and pay their bills? Eleven-dollar gas is the least these running-dog lackeys to the bourgeoisie deserve. Last, crippling the production and distribution of fireworks will strike a deadly blow against patriotism, just when it's needed most.

The article goes on to explain that limousine liberals have thwarted efforts to drill in ANWR and along the coasts, and concludes with this dirge for human freedom:
Oil sells for $145 per barrel mostly because of artificially-created supply-side shortages. A small part of its price is also determined by speculators and uncertainty over a future cut-off of oil from the middle east that a war with Iran could cause. Assuming that Iran’s nuclear bomb program is destroyed by Israel this fall -- with or without America’s help - look for oil to spike up to $250-300.
Indeed. I think it's fair to say that things are proceeding quite nicely, don't you?
|

Friday, July 04, 2008

Fourth Of July Fireworks 






The picture was taken by a friend of mine a few years ago.

|

Friday Critter Blogging: Deconstructing Disney (by Suzie) 



        Now that I’ve become a Chihuahuaphile, I can’t resist Disney’s “Beverly Hills Chihuahua,” opening Oct. 3. I wish I could enjoy the little dancing dogs in peace, without seeing how the movie reinforces the patriarchy. But that’s the problem when you swallow the red pill; you can no longer watch fluff without deconstructing it.
         As Joss Whedon said: "People used to laugh that academics would study Disney movies. There’s nothing more important for academics to study, because they shape the minds of our children possibly more than any single thing."
         In the upcoming movie, a “spoiled” little white Chihuahua from Beverly Hills gets “lost in the mean streets of Mexico” and ends up guided by a bigger, darker, lustful Chihuahua. (I hope this isn’t “Swept Away” for Chihuahuas.) Guess which is male and which is female?
         Many people covet the smallest Chihuahuas. Because it’s often easier for bigger dogs to give birth, a lot of teeny-tiny males get bred to bigger females. (My “retired breeder” is one of these BBWs.) When you anthropomorphize dogs, however, I guess you have to stick to the conventions that say males must be bigger. At least Disney didn't make the female Chihuahua pink.
          On the Disney site, the synopsis tells the story of a female finding her footing, with the assistance of male dogs. But the trailer focuses on the male dog, with the female as accessory. Disney has to be careful not to lose too many boy viewers.
         Before the trailer came out, Disney started a viral video campaign featuring the male dog as revolutionary. He speaks of Chihuahuas as if all are male, and these males must reclaim their dignity after being carried in purses. They can no longer take orders from female dogs, either.
         Is Disney making fun of machismo? Riffing on the insecurity of men who fear being “feminized”? I wish everyone would see it that way. 
         You can catch the viral video (which really is funny) on Dog Art Today, where Moira McLaughlin discusses how artists have stolen from one another, in regard to dogs and revolutions. One of those artists, Kevin McCormick, says he has been calling on Chihuahuas to revolt for years.
         Mark Derr says small dogs are stigmatized as women’s pets. Bigger dogs are associated with men and work, such as herding sheep or finding prey for hunters. But a Chihuahua? It's just a companion, and being a companion has little value in our society.
        But hey, happy Fourth of July. Thank the goddess that I don't have a yappy dog that would bark every few minutes, when the fireworks go off. 

|

Roundup on women and media (by Suzie) 



        Recently, I blogged about whether we can simply “add women and stir.” That concept came back to me as I was reading a news release from the International Women’s Media Foundation, which is honoring women who have continued coverage despite harsh conditions and death threats.
        These women deserve to be honored. But it’s not enough to honor women who risk their lives to do what men do. We also must value women who write about the stuff of women’s lives, the sorts of stories that get little coverage in mainstream media. The foundation helps make this possible by offering training and other resources.
          On the subject of female journalists who enter male-dominated areas: "Gillian Anderson will star in and produce a biopic of Martha Gellhorn, a trailblazing female war correspondent who covered conflicts from the Spanish Civil War to Vietnam," according to Variety. Can't wait for this? Then I hope you've already seen the movie about Irish journalist Veronica Guerin.
          (By the way, I'm always amused when writers feel the need to modify a job title with "female" even though it should be obvious from the context. I think readers can figure out that Gellhorn was a female correspondent by her name and the fact that she's being portrayed by a woman.)          
          I got the link on Gellhorn, as well as a lot of other news, from the Women's Media Center. It co-sponsored a forum titled "From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry and the Press in the 2008 Election." It has video on its Web site.
          An article on the forum notes that women comprised 91 percent of the audience. Although women have a lot to discuss with one another, in regard to the forum's topic, we need more men interested.

|

What is art? (by Suzie) 



       I made the mistake of taking a doctoral-level philosophy class on this topic, and I thought we covered every angle. But somehow we missed serving sushi on a naked woman. The St. Petersburg Times has a story and photo about a restaurant that does this. (OK, the woman isn't entirely naked. She wears "the smallest of G-strings and tiny flower-shaped pasties.") Invoking Picasso, the chef calls it his "expression of art." The art is enhanced by "two women dressed in skimpy school girl outfits danc[ing] on either side of the model."
         Most historians agree naked sushi — Nyotaimori (Japanese for "female body presentation") — started several hundred years ago in the geisha culture.
Critics say it eventually became less about the art and more about titillation. Now, even in the country where it originated, the event is conducted privately or in the red light districts.
         Naked sushi — banned in China because officials say it's unhygienic and infringes on women's rights — made its way to the United States in the early 1990s. It started in California and was featured in the movie Rising Sun ...
          What message do I get from this art? That women are decorative and functional objects, like fine china.

|

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Music After Storm 



Nina Simone: Here Comes The Sun.




|

More On Fertility Treatment 



Suzie's post on the question whether society should pay for poor women's fertility treatment provoked a lot of interesting comments. Every time I read them I had this odd feeling that I should comment on something that is relevant but I couldn't quite get it.

Today I did, and the comment I want to make is that it is not only women who suffer from infertility problems. Around forty percent of all infertility experienced by couples is due to problems with the man. Yet when we discuss infertility and its treatments we see it as a problem for women, almost exclusively. Now why is that?

It could be that it's easier to treat male infertility or that it's not treatable at all. It could be that couples who suffer from male infertility just get sperm from a donor and so those cases never appear in the records of fertility clinics. Or it could be that we see all fertility as somehow all about women.

But surely some infertile men yearn for their own biological child, too. Or do they?

|

Pop Polygamy 



I had a tough time deciding what to think about this article:

Polygamy's pop-culture moment now extends to the closet. FLDS women are offering their handmade, old-fashioned children's clothing for sale online - long underwear, slips and all.

At FLDSDress.com, pastel-pink dresses and denim overalls mirror the clothing that intrigued the nation when authorities raided the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Texas in April, taking children into custody while investigating charges of underage marriage and child abuse.

There are $65 "teen princess" dresses that stretch from ankle to wrist, long pajamas and matching robes, all sewn by the mothers themselves, even some in Arizona's own polygamist enclave of Colorado City.


Sales of the clothing will help the Texas FLDS women pay rent and support their families. Now displaced from their homes at the ranch, most of them are still in the midst of a child-abuse investigation, and lawyers have advised them to establish their own households.

Mothers originally created the site so Texas officials could get FLDS-approved clothing for the children while they were in state custody. Turns out other people were interested, too.

"We're used to our clothing not being popular," said Maggie Jessop, 44, an FLDS member who helps coordinate the sewing efforts. "(But) we've had many, many people say that they would like to have their children be more modest and have expressed interest in our modest lifestyle."

"There were a lot of people that asked, 'Where can I purchase those clothes?' " said Cynthia Martinez, spokeswoman for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, which represents 48 of the mothers.

Paul Murphy, spokesman for the Utah Attorney General's Office, finds the FLDS women's fashion offerings quite smart.

"It's very clever," he said. "With all the issues that are going on, most of the media attention has been about the way they dress and the way they wear their hair.

"I give them credit for going where the interest is."

In some ways it's a prime example of how difficult it is for women in traditionally patriarchal systems to make a living on their own, because most of them are not allowed to learn marketable skills. That these women can make some money out of making clothing is certainly wonderful, though how much they actually get is unclear from the article. We all know that textile workers are not terribly well paid.

At least this business offers some women a chance to survive outside the church, should they wish to do so, right? However:

Carolyn Jessop applauds the women for finding a way to support themselves and tiptoe toward independence.

"When 100 percent of their (financial) support is coming from the (FLDS) church, that makes them 100 percent dependent on the church," she said. "If they realize they have a skill that is marketable ... they might realize they could do it outside of the church."

Familiar with FLDS financial practices, Carolyn is concerned that the funds the women earn with their clothing sales won't end up in the mothers' pockets.

According to an FLDS spokesman, the women are paid per item sewn, and if they draw in more revenue than is needed to cover expenses, it is shared with other families.

"If people who purchase (the clothing) would at least request that they make the check out to the woman who made the garment," Carolyn said, "then this could be a really positive thing."

Is all this a positive development or not? When did we start thinking about polygamous systems such as this one as part of the popular culture, as something that is fun to imitate? When did we let people like Warren Jeffs decide what "modesty" might be?

The FLDS wardrobe puzzled and captivated America as events unfolded in Texas. The poufed hairstyles, long dresses and buttoned-up shirts are mandated by jailed FLDS leader Warren Jeffs, who disallows patterned fabric and the color red. The FLDS members wear the clothing as a symbol of their faith.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is part of a group that split from the Mormon Church in 1890 over the practice of polygamy. Those who have fled the polygamist sect have long accused it of conducting underage marriages and other abuse.

Jeffs was convicted in September of being an accomplice to rape, charges stemming from his role in marrying a girl to her first cousin.

Suddenly the idea of these outfits signifying "modesty" made me feel nauseous. It's Warren Jeffs who decides what these women and men wear. It's Warren Jeffs who bans the color red but not the forced marrying of little girls to old men as one of their multiple wives.

|

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Today's Funny 



This one, about Tyson Gay's great race, as seen through the glasses of an anti-gay news site which automatically converts "gay" to "homosexual":

Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has.

His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing.

"It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me."

Hat tip to Rorshach.

|

Hitchens and Waterboarding 



He tells us about his experiences being tortured. Somehow I have the impression that he used to be in the other camp about waterboarding: seeing it as not any worse than getting off the wagon before this little test? Note that in any case actually being waterboarded in interrogations would have an additional layer of horror because there the torturee is not in control of the process.

Who would have thought eight years ago that I would today write about the U.S. government applying medieval forms of torture and that there is an actual debate about whether they are torture or not?

How many ways did Osama bin Laden win? You might want to count them, starting with turning a somewhat free and democratic society into something much more closely resembling a police state, continuing with the loss of habeas corpus and the idea of pre-emptive warfare.

|

Studying the "Opt-Out" Revolution 



Kathy G. has blogged about a new study which suggests that women in general or educated women in particular are not opting out of the labor force at any higher rates than in the past, rather the reverse.

I really should read the studies on the "opt-out" revolution (about the labor market hours of women with children) and write a post on them. For various good reasons the topic isn't that easy to analyze.

For instance, whenever employment goes down as a whole, because of an economic slump, some people write about the corresponding drop in mothers' employment as evidence of opting out. Yet when the slump is over those same mothers (and all the other workers who were laid off) are quite likely to return to the labor market. But nobody writes about that return as proof that "opting out" has ended. So if you read popular articles on educated women quitting work you will get the impression that it's happening a lot, and part of the reason for that impression is that nobody writes the articles to tell us about educated women going to work or returning to work.

I'm not arguing here that there is no change in mothers' labor market participation rates in the recent years. Neither am I arguing that there is. Hence the reason to spend some time with the studies.

What I do know, however, is that the articles on "opting-out" which have appeared in such august places as the New York Times are not based on careful research of overall trends but on thinking that such an article would be interesting and on contacting suitable people for interviews. The problem with this is, of course, that I could make up a trend about something, too, and then find people who reflect that made-up trend in their behavior. Trends can't be studied by looking only at people among your acquaintances, unless your acquaintances just happen to be a perfect microcosm of the world in general.

More importantly, there is a hidden emotional undertone to these stories, and the undertone has to do with "opting-out" being voluntary, something that all mothers just really want to do, something that has nothing to do with the meager maternity leaves or the general lack of support for mothers in general, or the idea that all childcare is the responsibility of women or the way work is structured to match traditional male roles. These mothers just wanted to opt out, and that means there's no problem for anyone else, thoughofcoursewenowwonderifwomenshouldtakeplacesfrommenincollege.

Err. Don't know how that got in there. In any case, Kathy's post discusses an interesting reason for the general belief that "opting-out" is common among educated women, whatever statistics might tell us:

Yet, in spite of these strong and consistent findings, the myth of the "opt-out revolution" persists. Perhaps the most interesting part of Percheski's paper is the section that explores why this is so. First, she says, for women, having children does continue to be associated with lower levels of employment, and even though more professional women are working than ever before, many of them still don't work full-time, year-round.

Related to this, since there are more professional working women than ever before, "there are more women available to exit." Writes Percheski:

The average person is thus more likely to personally know a professional woman who has left the labor force. A woman who does not work full-time and long hours may now seem anomalous and be more noticeable than the thousands of professional women who are working full-time in demanding jobs while raising young children. Additionally, although the percentage of women with advanced degrees who are not working is declining across cohorts, the percentage of non-working women who have an advanced degree is growing because the whole population is becoming more educated.

Did you get it? Of course the quasi-trend manufacture also helps. For some reason women tend to be the focus of a lot of them. "Educated women can't get married" is another which crops up at great frequency even when statistics don't support it. I'm sure you can think of others, once you figure out that the main point of them is to highlight the return to traditional gender roles.

|

Poor Haloscan 



It appears to have died. I hope that is not true and that comments appear in short order, all hearty and hale.

|

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Time To Move To The Center 



That's the usual assumption about what happens after the presidential party primaries are over. The candidates stop courting their respective bases and start wooing the muddy middle of the so-called independent voters.

Thus, we should start seeing McCain sometimes sounding like a liberal (eek!) and Obama sometimes sounding like George Bush. We should. So far I have only seen Obama move to the right at a fairly good trot. Nothing corresponding appears to have happened to McCain.

The latest example of Obama's general election campaign shift is this:

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

That last sentence means that religious providers of various social services can discriminate in their hiring decisions and still get tax money perhaps paid into the system by the very people who couldn't get jobs with those providers. I'm not happy with this. Not happy at all, especially given the other religion posts I've written today.

Obama is thousand times better than McCain (who is now openly expressing his contempt for unions and minimum wages and such), make no mistake about that. But we need to keep reminding him of the issues which matter to us.

|

Church Within Church And Feminist Musings 



No, it's not Opus Dei within the Catholic Church this time, but the suggestion in Britain to protect those Anglican ministers who don't want to serve under female bishops:

MORE than 1300 clergy, including 11 serving bishops, have written to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to say that they will defect from the Church of England if women are consecrated bishops.
As the wider Anglican Communion fragments over homosexuality, England's established church is moving towards its own crisis with a crucial vote on women bishops this weekend.

In a letter to Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, seen by The Times, the signatories give warning that they will consider leaving the Church if two crucial votes are passed to introduce female bishops.

The Church's moderate centre is being pressured as never before by evangelicals opposed to gays and traditionalists opposed to women's ordination.

The crisis is unprecedented since the Reformation devastated the Roman Catholic Church in England in the 16th century.

The General Synod, the Church's governing body, meets in York on Friday where clergy will decide whether legislation to consecrate women should be introduced, and whether it should have legal safeguards for traditionalists or a simple voluntary code to protect them.

The signatories to the letter - who represent 10 per cent of all practising clergy and hundreds of recently retired priests still active in the Church - will only accept women bishops if they have a legal right to separate havens within the Church.

I had to read the story to the very end to find this:

At the same time, 1276 women clergy, 1012 male clergy and 1916 lay church members who support women bishops signed a statement objecting to the prospect of "discriminatory" legislation to safeguard opponents.

It's more interesting to focus on those who are opposed to female bishops than those who are for them, even if the latter are more in numbers.

By the way, today seems to have become my "religion-hates-women" day, mainly because religion very often does exactly that. I love the Southern Baptist definition of spiritual equality between the sexes as something which absolutely exists (absolutely!), but which somehow has zero implications in the here-and-now world, the only one on which we can look for corroborating evidence. In that world the men are the bosses and there's no way of firing a bad boss.

It's such a masterful concept! Do those Southern Baptist guys ever fear that to actually get those spiritual equality scales even might mean a hereafter where the women rule over men? Looking at the secular rules those guys have a little heavenly affirmative action in the opposite direction would appear to be necessary.

The Anglican case is nowhere as bad. Women can no longer be ministers at all in the Southern Baptist Church. The Anglicans let them minister and are just arguing over their ability to be bishops. The difference is humongous, enormous and gigantic.

Still, consider this odd fact of life: If you read this blog long enough you will find many, many posts on the topic of biological gender differences, how they are studied and how they are popularized, and in those posts I often scream and thunder about the need to control for the cultural effects before trying to study biology. The studies I criticize hardly ever do so. They pretend that women are treated in a perfectly gentlemanly manner (or cave-manly manner) by all and sundry and that nothing at all stops women from running or invading countries, from being the Pope and so on. It's only their itty-bitty genes which make women coy and family-centered and uninterested in casual sex or being bishops.

So these posts on religion serve as a very good reminder that we are slowly clawing ourselves up from a deep, deep well of gender-based restrictions, limitations and oppression, and that the resistance from the rest of the culture is something women have always had to take into account in whatever choices they were left.

|

Don't Lift The Rocks 



Creepy-crawlies will wiggle and wriggle out of there, just like those who left some of the comments on this article:

A Muskegon Heights mother who put poison in her baby's bottle is headed to prison.

Police say Shatara Jones, 19, put bleach and another cleaner in her child's bottles last February. She entered a guilty plea last month.

Today, the judge went above sentencing guidelines, ordering Jones to prison for 8 to 15 years.

Jones' one-year-old girl never drank the deadly mixture of milk and poison because the child's grandmother took the bottle away. The grandmother pleaded with the judge for a light sentence saying she called police, so her daughter could get help, not prison.

Some in the court cheered the judges' decision for a long prison sentence. Others said it was far too harsh.

It's not possible to tell from the story what Shatara Jones' mental condition might have been or if anyone bothered to look into it in the first place. Post-partum psychosis and depression come to mind as possible candidates. I also wonder if she actually planned to kill her child, given that she did all this in front of her mother who stopped her and called the police in order to get help for her daughter.

Of course what the daughter got was 8-15 years in prison.

Perhaps she deserved it. I cannot tell. But I wonder if she had gotten the same treatment had she been white and rich, or if she had indeed gotten the help she so obviously needs.

Whatever the justice of her sentence, I was thoroughly disgusted by most of the comments attached to the article. We humans really are like the vengeful god we invented.

|

More Southern Baptist "Old Boy" Religion 



Wanna learn how wife-abuse is the fault of the abused wives themselves? It's really easy to prove if you are Bruce Ware, a Southern Baptist preacher:

"One reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband's God-given authority."

and that,

"(W)omen desire to have their own way instead of submitting to their husbands because of sin."

and,

"And husbands on their parts, because they're sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority either by being abusive, which is of course one of the ways men can respond when their authority is challenged–or, more commonly, to become passive, acquiescent, and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and in churches,"

But of course abuse is one way for men to respond to such disobedient women. Of course.

I'm not sure how to even discuss something like this, to be quite honest. The Southern Baptist world view doesn't have many connections to my world view. For instance, I don't believe that men have a God-given right to rule over women. Neither can I understand how those with that view can blame the women if men fail to enforce that divinely ordained domination. Who was it again who is supposed to have the responsibilities of "leading" (as the religious fundies call bossing other people around)?

And what happens if the husband just likes to beat his wife and decides that the beatings are part of his God-given right to "lead"?

You might want to read more of Mr. Ware's thoughts on women, the evils of feminism and the need for women to voluntarily enslave themselves to the reproductive use of their husbands. For that is what he advocates, really.

Me, I think that anyone advocating such voluntarily enslavement based on nothing but gender is committing a sin themselves. But then I'm past redemption, most likely.

And yes, all this sounds very much like the radical Islamic view of the proper role of women.

|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
Progressive Women's Blog Ring
Join | List | Previous | Next | Random | Previous 5 | Next 5 | Skip Previous | Skip Next
  • DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!