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

Saturday, May 31, 2008

What's obscene? (by Suzie) 



          Trigger warning.
          Paul Little is on trial in Tampa for obscenity. The St. Petersburg Times explains
         Little, also known as Max Hardcore, and MaxWorld are charged with five counts of using a computer server to sell obscene matter and five counts of delivering obscene matter through the U.S. mail.
         Little, well-known in the pornography world, has acted in more than 130 movies, directed more than 100 and produced about 30, according to the Internet Movie Database. His films show men inflicting pain or humiliation on women. The movies have scenes that include urinating, vomiting and defecating. Adult actresses in the films are often made up to look like young girls.
          A few people have left comments that the porn sounds disgusting. But most say this is a waste of taxpayers' dollars; it's a violation of the First Amendment; it must be great fun to watch porn in a courtroom; people have different desires and we shouldn't judge them; porn (i.e., sex) is better than violent movies; the women in the film liked it, or liked being paid, or should have known what they were getting into, even if they did get hurt. (Hey, I wonder if I could devise a bingo game around porn rationalizations.)
           Someone by the name of Chuck says freedom of speech is being "raped."
           GVan: "As long as the girls claim to be 18, it should be allowed. At least no animals were harmed."
           MSmithJr: "Hey, they serving popcorn or tissues?"
           But no one says: "You know, it's just a tad creepy that there are so many people who enjoy watching men inflict pain and humiliation on young women. I wonder if this says something about our society as a whole?"

|

A Music Moment 



A Finnish guy singing about being messed up. Not from rock-n-roll, not from booze, but from you. Love, yanno.




|

Friday, May 30, 2008

Father Pfleger and privilege (by Suzie) 

     

        I was reading a thread over at Shakesville, and I realized: I don’t have to keep commenting. I’ve got my own blog! I’m privileged. (And I mean that. Well, I mean that about privilege, but not having my own blog. I’m an auxiliary Snake who posts at the pleasure of the Goddess.)
        I want to hone in on privilege and us-vs.-them politics. But first, let me bring up points made by Tamura Lomax, who described herself as a religious scholar, historian and feminist theorist. She wrote that others were taking the Rev. Pfleger’s comments out of context. She noted that black churches have always mixed politics and religion. This argument also has been brought up in reference to the Rev. Wright. But it ignores the fact that religion and politics have been mixed in many places and many times, not just in the African-American Christian tradition. Also, there are many whites who respond in exuberant ways, including speaking in tongues and handling snakes. (I'd be remiss not to mention that on a blog titled “Echidne of the Snakes.”)
         Lomax wrote that whites have ignored the black church tradition. Some others who defended Wright also suggested whites are ignorant about black churches. It’s true that many whites have never attended a black church service. On the other hand, the traditional preaching style and call-and-response have been represented so many times in the media, especially movies, that some whites may think all African Americans pray the same way. That would be a disservice to those who don’t, and here, I’m thinking especially of my former minister.
         Lomax wrote that she enjoyed seeing Clinton attacked for white privilege. She has written about this on her Web site, in which she goes after Clinton for floating the idea of herself as vice president. She attributes this "audacity" to the unrelenting privilege of white women.
… Clinton is a white woman and history shows that white women always have their “turn” after white men but before black men …
          I attribute Clinton’s attitude to the privilege of a candidate who has run a close race, in which Democrats have talked at length about having both candidates on the ticket. For a while, I think Clinton was sure that she was going to win, just as Obama now seems confident that he will win. To the opposite side, this can seem arrogant. But I don’t think Obama is gloating that he has beaten a woman any more than I think Clinton thought she was entitled to win because she’s white.
          As I’ve said before, there’s a danger in talking about white women as if we are all privileged in the same way and to the same degree. (The same goes for thinking that male privilege works the same for all black men.) This disappears other factors, such as age, class, ability, sexuality, etc.
         There also is the issue of leaders who set up an us-vs.-them dichotomy. The Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, president of Chicago Theological Seminary and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, preached at Trinity United Church of Christ on the same day as Pfleger. (Thanks to "Aphra Behn" for posting the link.) Thistlethwaite later wrote this:
The idea that you should inflame people’s hatred of one another as a way to mobilize voters has been dominant since 1972 and very powerful. But it has produced near paralysis in Washington and disastrous foreign policy. But hate dies hard and while people want to find unity, they can easily fall back into divisive rhetoric, especially when it is disguised as humor. This is bad at a dinner party; in the pulpit it is shameful and wrong. … Apparently the way Pfleger understands race or gender is through conflict and opposition, not through unity, common ground and certainly not as “sacred”.
          Encouraging a sense of us vs. them does help to unite “us” for action, including voting. But it has the unfortunate consequence of uniting “them” as well.

          ETA: Tamura Lomax has accused me of being a liar. I did not intentionally misrepresent her. I encourage readers to see what she has written at her Web site, on Shakesville and in the comments section.
          Lomax accused Clinton of white privilege in suggesting Obama be her vice president earlier in the race. I apologize for getting that wrong. But my reasoning remains the same. I still think Clinton was speaking as a politician who thought she could win the popular vote, not as someone who thought that her whiteness entitled her to triumph over a black man.
         Lomax also says: “I wouldn't "enjoy" seeing anyone "attacked" for any reason.” 
       

|

"Holding commercial sex buyers accountable" by Suzie 



         Equality Now has a new action aimed at the trafficking and prostitution of women in India. The action is aimed at the passage of legal amendments that would decriminalize prostitution but penalize buyers. Some people support the former, but not the latter, arguing that legalization and regulation of prostitution would increase the use of condoms and lessen the abuse of women. Equality Now argues:
In fact what happens in countries where prostitution has been legalized is that the illegal sex industry has blossomed in parallel and trafficking of women increases to meet the demand for prostitution. It would be more effective to address the HIV/AIDS crisis, as well as the life crises of girls and women ...
          Making it illegal to buy sex may be the only way to wake up a lot of men, who do not want to “get” that the women they’re buying may be enslaved or abused. In talking to male friends who’ve used prostitutes, some times I’m astounded by their ignorance. I’ve come to think that it’s important for them to ignore facts to avoid feeling guilty.
          I’m thinking of the men who told me that the women really liked them, really found them attractive, and really wanted to have sex with them. I ask, “Did she still charge you?” I’m thinking of the men who say they really treated the women well, which means they didn’t physically force them or call them names or fail to pay. It never occurred to these guys that there was any chance these women might have been trafficked from their hometowns or that the women had not freely chosen this work.
           I’m also thinking of a friend who attended the Summer Institute on Sexuality, Culture and Society in Amsterdam. She was eager to check out the women in the Red Light District. She lost her desire when she saw bruises on a woman’s wrists.
           A travel site promotes the district, “where women, of all nationalities, parade their wares.” A site on trafficking notes working conditions.
        I understand that prostitution is a hotly contested topic among feminists, many of whom consider it no more demeaning than other work. People can debate that in good faith. But if you call me an uptight prude, you’ll just make my friends laugh.

|

Douglass, Stanton and the 15th Amendment (by Suzie) 



          I’ve posted recently on Frederick Douglass, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the 15th Amendment. The politics of the abolition and suffragist movements fascinate me.
          I highly recommend a NYT article on the subject by Debby Applegate, who won the Pulitzer Prize for her biography of Henry Ward Beecher. (If you read the whole article, which you should, let me note again that, when Stanton referred to the “lower orders” of men, she was talking about the poorest and least educated. Socioeconomic class became entangled with racial and ethnic bigotry.)
         ... there was no intrinsic reason both blacks and women couldn’t attain the rights of citizenship or suffrage at the same time.
        Of course, it wasn’t black men or white women who decided that there wasn’t room for them both to enter. After all, neither group could vote in the ratification process. Stanton and Douglass may have had a lot to say to each other and the press, but neither of them had any say in the wording of the amendment.
        Instead, this was decided by a coalition of Republican politicians in Washington who supported black suffrage — and thus the creation of a sure new population of black Republican voters — as a way to shore up their precarious majority in Congress. (There were nobler motives as well, but the timing of the amendment was all politics.)
         The exclusion of women was also a partisan decision, since enfranchising white women would run the risk of creating as many new Democratic voters as Republicans. The Republicans’ public line, however, was that the amendment would have no chance of ratification if it were so bold as to offer universal suffrage.
         … The 15th Amendment marked the end of the public’s commitment to major social change. Within the decade, the Republican Party had shed its progressive activism to become the party of big business and laissez-faire policy.
         …. if history offers a lesson here, it is not that Americans cannot handle too much change at one time or that we must inch our way, one by one, through the door of equality. Rather, it is that opportunities for genuine change are rare and when they occur we must kick the door off the hinges while we can. It is much harder to pry open the public mind once it has shut itself up again.
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 


I write poetry, I've studied poetry, but the only poem I can recite from memory is:

The Purist
by Ogden Nash

I give you now Professor Twist,
A conscientious scientist,
Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!"
And sent him off to distant jungles.
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
"You mean," he said, "a crocodile."

If you don't know the difference, get educated at the Web site of the St. Augustine Alligator Farm, one of the oldest zoos in Florida. It's on the National Register of Historic Places. These photos are from 1992. Alligators like lying together in the sun. The bottom photo is of a crocodile being fed. Not just any crocodile, though. It's the late, great Gomek, 17 feet, 9 inches, the largest crocodile in the Western hemisphere. He was a saltwater crocodile from Papua New Guinea. He has been "preserved" at the zoo. 

|

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Michelle Malkin and Dunkin Donuts 



This is quite the funny story. Michelle Malkin was upset by an ad Rachael Ray did for Dunkin Donuts, this one:





Notice the scarf Ray is wearing? It looks like a kaffiyeh, a common scarf in many Arab cultures. But according to Malkin Dunkin Donuts is supporting islamofaziterrorism with this ad.

The kaffiyeh, Malkin wrote in a column posted online last Friday, "has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not-so-ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons."

A statement issued Wednesday by Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin' Brands Inc., however, said the scarf had a paisley design, and was selected by a stylist for the advertising shoot.

"Absolutely no symbolism was intended," the company said.


As is clearly proper, Dunkin Donuts has withdrawn the offending ad. We all know that what we wear has a political meaning, after all.

Let's apply this to Michelle Malkin herself. Here she is shown wearing (embracing!) a leather jacket:





According to Wikipedia:

Leather jackets were also popular with the Russian Bolsheviks and were nearly a uniform for the Commissars during the Russian Civil War and later for the members of the Cheka. This practice is said to have been initiated by Sverdlov.

Oh my! Quick! Someone tell Michelle that she has been the victim of fashion designers and ignorant popularizers of a COMMUNIST piece of apparel! She must, must abstain from wearing one in the future.

If she does not, we all know whose side she is taking in the great ideological wars.

|

A Clusterfuck 



You may have heard about that draft for an international treaty about banning the use of cluster bombs, the one which 111 nations have approved. Cluster bombs are extremely nasty creatures. The unexploded bits are later often found by playing children.

You may have also seen the list of those countries which still love them dearly:

... the United States has been joined in its outright opposition to the ban, and in its boycott of the Dublin conference, by a group of military powers that includes China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan and Brazil.


Now it could be that it's in the interest of the United States to hug these weapons to her/his/its chest, because all that prevents the certain deaths of mother, apple pie and good C&W music might be those demonic weapons. It could be. If you choose to forget that the U.S. spends more on weaponry than the next four highest spenders together. Or if you choose to forget the idea of the United States as the home of democracy, the leader of the free world, a mature country.

The militaristic, crabby and fearful attitude reflected in this latest saga about the United States in the Bush era is not what the rest of this world's people would look up to and admire. It's hard to pretend to lead others when at the same time you are hoarding cluster bombs behind your back so that you are ready to kill them.

I'm not naive enough to assume that just being noble and enlightened would somehow make a military force unnecessary. But the U.S. already has a gigantic military force, with nuclear bombs which can kill all of us many times over. To then try to hold on to something as nasty as cluster bombs comes across mean-spirited, selfish and stupid.

|

Fighting For God 



It can be tricky for atheists in the U.S. military, at least according to Army Specialist Jeremy Hall:

Army Spc. Jeremy Hall did two tours in Iraq, saw his share of fire and came back in one piece. Too bad he needs a bodyguard to keep his fellow soldiers from attacking him now that he's back in the States.

Hall's problems started in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner in 2006, during his second tour. One of the men at Hall's table asked that they pray together. The soldiers joined hands — except for Hall. Most didn't know he was an atheist until that moment.

"I joined as a religious person," says the 23-year-old Hall, who is now stationed at Fort Riley. "Then I met some other people with different ideas, and I actually read the Bible. It didn't make any sense to me, so I decided for myself. It really doesn't matter anyway. You're going to die and pay taxes either way."

Hall kept those opinions to himself at the dinner. He says he declined to pray as respectfully as he could. When word got around the tables that he wouldn't pray, he was confronted by a senior-ranking staff sergeant, who demanded to know why. Hall explained that he was an atheist — then explained what an atheist was when the sergeant didn't understand.

"He basically told me to get the hell out of there and that I couldn't eat with them," Hall says. "I just sat there quietly and finished it. A Mormon girl actually stood up for me and said they shouldn't do that, because it's not just me. They give Mormons shit, too."

In July 2007, Hall decided to find out how many soldiers agreed with him. He approached his Army chaplain for permission to hold a meeting of atheists, freethinkers and any other non-Christians. He got the chaplain's blessing and posted fliers for the meeting.

"There wasn't any support for anyone like me, so I just wanted to provide it. Strength in numbers," Hall says. "I wasn't asking for domination, just that we are here, and we are real, and you've got to deal with us."

Hall's fliers were ripped up or defaced. "'Fag, God loves you, you're going to hell,' all kinds of crazy shit," Hall says of the writing on the notices. But the nonbelievers still showed up. So did Maj. Freddy Welborn, Hall says.

The meeting didn't delve into deep questions. The few who attended didn't get much further than who they were and where they were from when Welborn stood up to confront the group. According to Hall, Welborn threatened to use the meeting as justification to keep Hall from re-enlisting, as well as potential action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Jeremy Hall has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that his right not to be coerced by the government to practice a particular religion has been violated.

It's just a little bit scary to wonder if the military might have a religious axe to grind, is it not?

|

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

"A" Is For Ambition 



And "B" is for The Bitches Who Have It. This I have learned from the political pundits in the media.

Nevertheless, the reason why there are so few women in politics is that women lack ambition. This I learned from Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post:

As Hillary Clinton cracks her head against what she likes to call "the highest and hardest glass ceiling," there's no doubt that she craves the presidency as much as any man does.

But a new report from the Brookings Institution suggests an unexpected reason for the relative paucity of women elsewhere in political office and the dearth of credible female presidential candidates: an ambition gap.

"Somewhat surprisingly," write political scientists Jennifer Lawless of Brown University and Richard Fox of Loyola Marymount, women's underrepresentation "is not because of discrimination against women candidates. In fact, women perform as well as men when they do run for office. In terms of fundraising and vote totals, the consensus among researchers is the complete absence of overt gender bias."

Rather, the "fundamental reason for women's underrepresentation is that they do not run for office. There is a substantial gender gap in political ambition; men tend to have it, and women don't."

This wonderful new gender gap is called an "ambition gap." No, it's not that gap where testicles ought to be found in a politician. It's something women themselves cause. It's all in our little pretty heads:

Sometimes the hardest glass ceilings are the ones women impose, whether knowingly or unconsciously, on ourselves.

Yah?

That second quote is the way Ruth Marcus finishes her column, a column in which she writes about the many reasons why women might not enter political races as candidates, including this one: Women are held to very different standards in politics. A woman with children is viewed as primarily responsible for them. A man, not so much.

Just imagine the response if John Edwards was the one with cancer and Elizabeth Edwards had announced that she will run for the presidency, despite their two young children and an ailing husband. I think her ambition would have been viewed as very unseemly.

Yet all this is an "ambition gap" between the sexes, something that has somehow germinated and sprouted inside the female skulls without anyone at all feeding or watering that monster plant. Marcus wonders why fewer women than men regard themselves as well qualified for political office, and I wonder what planet she lives on. She wonders why more women than men worry about being inadequately thick-skinned for the political fights, and I wonder if the media on that faraway Marcusian home planet ever showed the treatment that ambitious women in American politics get. It's not exactly a level playing field of insults, you know. Female politicians get the usual insults and then they get the extra insults for being ambitious, selfish bitches whose children have probably died from hunger and loneliness because they have bad mothers, or for being ambitious, selfish bitches who never bothered to have any children at all.

This is kind of fun, isn't it?

Let's look at the definition of discrimination in that Brookings study:

"Somewhat surprisingly," write political scientists Jennifer Lawless of Brown University and Richard Fox of Loyola Marymount, women's underrepresentation "is not because of discrimination against women candidates. In fact, women perform as well as men when they do run for office. In terms of fundraising and vote totals, the consensus among researchers is the complete absence of overt gender bias."

This seems to assume that any woman can just announce tomorrow that she will run for office and that she will be supported; that there is no prior grooming of the candidates, no selection process before the actual running takes place, no networking. It's almost as if we looked at a firm with very few female employees and liked the fact that they were paid as well as the male employees for their work while ignoring the question why there were so few female employees in the first place. Or rather, not ignoring it, but deciding that the right answer was that women just didn't bother to apply in larger numbers, for whatever reason. No discussion of the corporate culture perhaps steering women away altogether, for example, no discussion in the many ways one can discourage someone from applying, by "losing" applications and so on.

My purpose here is not to argue that overt discrimination in the form of some kind of gatekeeping is the real explanation for the Brookings findings, but to point out that we can't assume the absence of this gatekeeping the way the researchers appear to have done. It's something to study, not something to assume.

Let's go back to the beginning of the alphabet: Ambition. Are women really less ambitious? Who knows. Doesn't the answer to that depend on how we define ambition? Is a mother who relentlessly drives her children to succeed not ambitious, for example? And doesn't the answer also reflect what characteristics are regarded in the "ideal woman" of this culture? Personal ambition is unlikely to be ranked very high in any list of such characteristics.

Which suggests to me that women might lie about their ambitiousness. It's truly not regarded as a good thing for girls to be. And the "ambition gap" is not a glass ceiling caused by only women themselves. That's very much like all those stories about women fretting over work-life balance, stories, which are often accompanied by a picture of a harassed-looking woman juggling a baby, a big stack of work papers and a cell phone. Note what is missing in that picture: No bosses, no husbands, no society. The woman alone, with the problems she has to solve.

Of course the real explanation is not that simple.

|

Digby on Chris Matthews 



Hendrik Hertzberg has written a piece about what a good guy Chris Matthews is. Digby begs to differ, and so do I in one sense:

It seems to me that if we had a female version of Chris Matthews, say, Christine Matthews, with the same history but with the proper reversals we'd never hear the end of what a male-bashing feminazi she is. But somehow the fact that Chris Matthews has a severe problem in viewing women as human beings, in viewing therefore the majority of human beings as human beings -- well -- that's just a small unfortunate quirk in an otherwise honorable and gentle man.

Now that really should be astonishing. That it is not tells you lots about the society we live in.

|

On Sex Segregation 



Bathrooms. That's probably what comes to your mind if you think about where the sexes are segregated in this country. Bathrooms and physical education classes after a certain age. But there are also sex-segregated schools and the conservatives would like to make those much more common.

The principle they would apply to justify that is "separate but equal", pretty much, according to the legal rule (Plessy v. Ferguson) which allowed for race-segregated public education in the United States until the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision of the mid-fifties. That "separate" was not "equal" in that system goes without saying: the black schools were much, much poorer than the white schools, for example.

But it wasn't all the economic evidence which really made up the Court's minds to declare that intentional race-selection was not permissible: It was the stories psychologists told about how black children preferred white dolls over black dolls and how they attributed better personal characteristics to white faces than to black faces. In short, how they breathed in and drank and ate racism every day of their lives.

School integration has not stopped racism, of course, and neither are schools really integrated today. But the situation is not as horrible as it was fifty years ago when the segregation was legally required.

Where did that "separate but equal" decision come from, anyway? The Plessy v. Ferguson, had to do with the question whether trains could legally segregate their passenger compartments by race. The court thought that they could, as long as the seats were equally comfy in all carriages, as long as the conductors were equally polite, and as long as the chances of finding a vacant seat didn't differ by race. But of course all these differed in practice.

That long preamble was an attempt to explain why I don't think that sex segregated education in this country could ever be guaranteed to be an equal education for both boys and girls. Note, for one thing, that if anyone really wants to discriminate against, say, girls in this field, an absolute prerequisite for doing that successfully is to segregate girls from boys. Otherwise it's much harder to require that girls take courses in cooking and household management while boys take courses in physics. Or to spend less money on girls' education in the guise of providing for the different ways that the sexes supposedly learn best.

Segregation doesn't have to result in unequal education, but stopping it from doing exactly that requires great vigilance. In a way segregation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sex discrimination of the extreme types.

For those types we can turn our eyes to Saudi Arabia, a country in which women live in an almost separate world from that inhabited by men. But note how very unequally the space in that world is divided: women are limited to their homes, pretty much, whereas men have all of the public space as theirs. Even the homes are ultimately men's spaces. It is the men who have the final power at home, too. There's nothing about the "equal" in that "separateness."

All this made me try to imagine what a truly "separate but equal" world would look like in terms of gender segregation, and the only answer I could come up with is that it would be a world consisting of two sovereign states: one for men and one for women. These states would trade in sperm in one direction and baby boys in the other direction. Because these two trades are not equal in effort, the guys' state would also probably have to pay the gals' state for the boys.

Does that sound like science fiction to you? Sheri Tepper has written about that very idea in The Gate To Women's Country, and her book addresses many of the dilemmas present in that solution: How to keep the women's country from being taken over by the men's country, what to do about the grief that the mothers of boys feel when they have to relinquish their sons and how to reintegrate the countries at some future date. But the point she perhaps fails to stress enough is the advantage of that two-state solution: It's the one way that women actually could have institutional power in a gender segregated world.

I should probably stress that this post is an intellectual exercise in thinking about what sex segregation means. I'm not advocating it and neither am I arguing that men on the whole would advocate it or would want to dominate women through it. But pointing out the negatives of sex segregation is a useful thing to do, especially in light of the many proposals to reintroduce it into the American public school system.
|

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Webb as Obama's VP Candidate? 



This has been suggested. I shiver and feel slightly nauseous when I hear that or when I read the glowing arguments supporting Webb: He's a real man's man, full of anger and testosterone, a real military guy who will kick the conservatives in the ass (or the elephant).

Never mind that only recently he was a conservative himself and that there are strong suggestions that he still is a social conservative, at least as far as women are concerned. He's not the most aware of guys in that respect, to put it in very gentle and womanly terms. If I didn't want to be gentle and womanly here I might confess to you that my "sexist pig" radar does light up when he appears on my television screen. He may not be one, of course, but he certainly was one some decades ago, and I have not read or heard anything from him that would suggest that his views on women have really altered that much.

Kathy Geier, guest-blogging for Matthew Yglesias, tends to agree. She also points out why appointing Webb as the Vice Presidential candidate might not be Obama's best political move:

Above all, though, I am very troubled by the idea that a man who has held such sexists views, and has done so much to damage the cause of gender equality in the military, would be one heartbeat away from the presidency. I do not think Webb is at all trustworthy on women's issues, and women's issues are very important to me and to millions of others besides. I think it's essential that any Democratic president or vice president have a good record on women's, civil rights, and labor issues. It's not just that women, African-Americans, and unions are the core constituencies of the Democratic party. It's that advancing the causes of racial, gender, and economic equality are the among the most important moral and political issues of our time. These are core values to me and millions of other Democrats, and elevating a man who has been so awful on one of them to the second most powerful position in the party is completely unacceptable.

Stepping away from all that high-minded rhetoric, I'll add that, in practical terms, selecting Webb would be a slap in the face to the Hillary Clinton supporters. I'm not saying that Obama has to pick Hillary as veep (and indeed, I think that would be a bad idea). I'm not even saying that he needs to pick a woman.

But Hillary was the first woman to ever have a serious shot at the presidency, and she came so close. So the Hillary supporters (of whom, to be clear, I am not one) will feel frustrated enough that their candidate didn't win. But for Obama to choose -- out of all the well-qualified candidates out there -- the one person who has a really awful record on gender issues would be like rubbing salt in the wound. It would be seen as a big "screw you" to Hillary's supporters and to feminists in general.

Indeed. That so many people don't see that suggests that women are still not seen as a meaningful group of voters to court.
-----
Added later: There's an odd sense of double layers of sexism in thinking about Webb as the possible Vice Presidential candidate for Obama. On one level, he is the embodiment of all the masculine values that the conservatives say Democratic politicians lack. He is certainly not the Breck Girl John Edwards, certainly not the wind-surfing John Kerry and certainly not female in actual fact! He could save us! He could! Because he was in the military and all that. He's as sexist as McCain!

At the same time, what does that support tell the Democratic women voters? The idea that we need a man who is not effeminate is more important than whether that man actually looks down on women in general.

|

Worth A Listen 



This NPR story about the women in Basra, Iraq. Their freedoms have increased now that the Iraqi military is in control of the city, but most see the relief as only temporary.

I was especially struck by the accusation made against the British troops: that they didn't do anything to protect the women of Basra during their stay.

|

We Hates Them, Duckie 



Yes, we do. We hates the woman celebrities, at least in the U.K.:

In a survey this week, by Marketing magazine the respondents' top five most loved celebrities were men - Paul McCartney, Lewis Hamilton, Gary Lineker, Simon Cowell and David Beckham. Of the five most hated, the top four were women - Heather Mills, Amy Winehouse, Victoria Beckham and Kerry Katona.

Heather Mills is probably the easiest dealt with. Many people's main gripe with celebrity is that it offers those without talents a chance to find material wealth through manipulation. For the tabloid media at least, Mills fits the bill.

But it's a bit harder to fathom the rest of the list. Why are these women seen to be so loathsome?

THE MOST HATED & MOST LOVED
1. Heather Mills - 28.3%
2. Amy Winehouse - 11.4%
3. Victoria Beckham - 10.2%
4. Kerry Katona - 10%
5. Simon Cowell - 4.6%

1. Paul McCartney - 14.9%
2. Lewis Hamilton - 11.2%
3. Gary Lineker - 11.2%
4. Simon Cowell - 9.7%
5. David Beckham - 9.4%
Source: Brands We Love and Brands We Hate, Marketing magazine

The phenomenon is to be tackled in an upcoming gathering of academics entitled Going Cheap?: Female Celebrity in the Tabloid, Reality and Scandal Genres, organised by Prof Diane Negra at the University of East Anglia on 25 June.

Why do I want to write this whole post in the Gollum voice (from the Lord of The Rings)? Perhaps because there is something Gollum-like about the way Britney Spears has been gobbled up, spat out and gobbled up so many times in the American popular media. It's as if she (and Paris Hilton) are here on earth so that other people have a legitimate object for their hatred. We loves to hate 'em, my precious, yes, we does.

A Gandalf voice would be better when trying to understand why it is mostly women who are the objects of hatred, both by men and by women, and why the married couples on that list split so oddly by gender into two different camps. But my inner Gandalf is scared of women altogether and thus would be quiet on this topic of no importance.

If he weren't such a wimp he might ask how celebrities are manufactured. What makes Heather Mills into a celebrity? She has never worked in the performing arts. She just happened to have been married to Paul McCartney, one of the Beatles. Her "celebrity" is completely situational, completely dependent on her connection to him and his celebrity. Add to that a very unpleasant divorce, and there you have it! A woman we all can hate because we love him.

I'm bringing that up as an example of the impact of the media itself on this hating and loving business. The way stories describe a celebrity surely affects how many people hate him or her, and the stories about people like Britney Spears or Paris Hilton usually offer zero compassion or empathy. Is this true of hateful stories about male celebrities? I don't know, but that topic might be worth studying.

The article I linked to above suggests that the hatred of female celebrities might still have to do with the desire for traditional gender roles:

Ms Negra thinks we do hold female celebrities to different standards than their male counterparts.

Ambitious women

"There has been a conspicuous trend in the last five years towards the production of negatively-valued women in the public sphere. People respond to the pleasures of hating these kinds of figures.

"There is incredible ambivalence in a post-feminist culture towards women in the public sphere."

In a nutshell, despite years of equal opportunities, the media - and the people who watch and read - prefer the stay-at-home mother over a woman who lives her life in public, particularly one who is overtly ambitious or successful in making money. There is great satisfaction among many people in seeing them humbled, Ms Negra suggests.

Perhaps. But Heather Mills surely is a stay-at-home mother, and she leads that list of hated women.

|

Monday, May 26, 2008

He Loved Horses 



This is something I wrote for Paxamericana earlier. It seems appropriate for Memorial Day.



He loved horses. When the enemy approached and the village had to be evacuated it made sense that he would go with the horses. Someone had to, and most of the adult men were already fighting the war. He was fifteen, old enough to go alone. And the horses needed someone with them in the train carriages, someone they knew, someone they trusted, someone who could stroke them gently when the bombs went off, someone who could stop them from shivering. Later that time meant for him the frightened eyes of the young colt, the foam around its mouth, the long dark carriage without food for animals or for people. The sound of the engine and the song of the weapons.

He loved horses. The following year he was old enough to go to war, a man now, all of sixteen. He was good with horses, so they made him a messenger boy between the artillery units. He would ride the horses with another boy, someone he made friends with. It was almost a summer camp for them, a lark. They were heroes! They were men now! Until the day when a hand grenade exploded under what only a moment earlier had been his friend on a horse. Red. So much redness. More redness in the world than he could imagine.

After that day he grew used to the redness and the war. He did what he was told to do and he survived the war. Peace broke out, and his life was suddenly there, all open, for him to step into. Life. Light and silence or only ordinary noises. He could learn to like it. The war was over. He got a job, a wife, children. The war was over.

Then came the nightmares. They would gallop across his sleeping mind, hooves red with blood, gallop and gallop in a war that never ended. Sometimes he would drink until the galloping stopped. Sometimes he would look into the mirror and see a young man, intact, and then he would think the nightmares were just dreams. Sometimes he would look into the mirror and see himself filled with blood, all blood, ready to explode.

Nightmares cannot be stroked, cannot be made to stop shivering. But he grew used to them. He learned how to live around them, how to forget the war when he was awake. How to be on guard. He never knew what might explode, who might turn into an enemy. He had to be on guard, had to have rage, had to ride it like a horse, towards some invisible goal of safety. Had to ride roughshod sometimes, over people, not around them. Had to. Had to teach the children so that they wouldn't be shocked by the redness or the blood or the trains coming and going. Better they know when they are little. That way nothing can hurt them later, nothing. And had to teach them not to care about the horses or other living things. Too much blood. Too much to care about, too much to leave behind.

He used to love horses.

|

On Public Intellectuals 



I once wrote a mildly funny post on this breed of celebrities. But Daniel Drezner takes them more seriously (click on the document he links to in the post):

The remaining claim is that there are no more Big Thinkers and Big Books. Jacoby repeatedly challenges critics of The Last Intellectuals to name the names of current public intellectuals in order to compare with the past. But this is not a very difficult task. Among periodicals, The New Yorker has Malcolm Gladwell, James Surowiecki and Louis Menand on their payroll; Andrew Sullivan, James Fallows, and Virginia Postrel write for The Atlantic; Harper's contributing editors include Barbara Ehrenreich, Thomas Frank, and Tom Wolfe; Vanity Fair has James Wolcott and Christopher Hitchens; Newsweek employs Fareed Zakaria, Daniel Gross and George F. Will. Despite the thinning of their ranks, unaffiliated public intellectuals like Paul Berman, Michael Beschloss, Debra Dickerson, Robert D. Kaplan, John Lukacs, Joshua Micah Marshall, Rick Perlstein and Robert Wright still remain. The explosion of think tanks in the past thirty years has contributed to a rise in partisanship – but it has also provided sinecures for the intellectual likes of Robert Kagan, Joel Kotkin, Michael Lind, Brink Lindsey, Jedediah Purdy, and David Rieff.1 Within the academy, there is no shortage of public intellectuals: Eric Alterman, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Michael Bérubé, Joshua Cohen, Jared Diamond, Jean Behke Elshtain, Amitai Etzioni, Niall Ferguson, Richard Florida, Francis Fukuyama, John Lewis Gaddis, Henry Louis Gates, Jacob Hacker, Samuel Huntington, Tony Judt, Paul Kennedy, Paul Krugman, Steven Leavitt, Lawrence Lessig, John Mearsheimer, Martha Nussbaum, Steven Pinker, Richard Posner, Samantha Power, Robert Putnam, Dani Rodrik, Jeffrey Sachs, Amartya Sen, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Joseph Stiglitz, Laurence Summers, Cass Sunstein, Michael Walzer, Sean Wilentz, E.O. Wilson, and Alan Wolfe.

Note how being of the girly persuasion appears to conflict with being a public intellectual, or at least Drezner can't think of as many female foghorns as male ones. Perhaps there are indeed fewer women who are regarded as public intellectuals, but it could also be that Daniel Drezner can't see them or defines the term in ways which tends to bias it towards men.

I started wondering if we have lots and lots of private intellectuals, many of them women, talking like silent thunder (cp the next post below) and nobody hears them. Then I wondered what makes a person into "a public intellectual." Surely it is more than being an intellectual?

The list Drezner gives doesn't help very much as it seems to consist of both wheat and lots of chaff, the latter including some who blow their own horn very loudly.

Anyway, I created many tentative definitions of the term, ranging from "a shameless charlatan" to someone who is excellent in communicating difficult theoretical concepts to laypeople and who is also willing to participate in public debates. But none of them capture that odd whiff of elitism that I associate with the idea of public intellectuals: Like poet laureates (poets laureate?) that are supposed to tell the rest of us what to think. Yet many people in Drezner's list are ideologues for one field of politics or another.

|

Today's Koan 



Silent thunder.

|

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Media bias starts early (by Suzie) 


... the Geena Davis Institute of Gender in Media ... partnered with USC's Annenberg School of Communications to undertake the largest study of live-action and animated G-rated movies ever. ... Male characters outnumbered female characters in all genres by as much as 2:1, not only in lead speaking roles, but even in crowd scenes. 
          This article explores movies and TV shows for kids. But the only comment comes from an accursed "anonymous" who complains: "Oh my god ... not THIS idiotic conversation again." After all, what's the harm if young kids hear mostly male narrators and see mostly male heroes? How could it possibly affect their view of themselves and the world?
           For a global perspective, read this post by Ammu Joseph.

|

Have You Had Enough? 



Of the sexism that seems to be all the rage among the political pundits these days? If not, watch some more below. If you no longer need convincing about its ubiquity and want to protest right now, click on this link and sign the attached petition.

What is the petition all about?

This:

On May 23, The Women's Media Center, along with our partners at Media Matters, launched, "Sexism Sells, But We're Not Buying It," a new video and online petition campaign illustrating the pervasive nature of sexism in the media's coverage. While Hillary Clinton's campaign has cast a spotlight on the issue of sexism, this isn't a partisan issue: it's about making sure that women's voices are present and powerful in our national dialogue.

And due to popular demand, here, once again is the Political Boyz Choir on what fun sexism is. Especially among a team of just guys:



|

Friday, May 23, 2008

Friday Critter Blogging: More Parrot 



By swampcracker





I did some standing meditation in the park the other day. Friendly dogs would come over to investigate that strange new tree, and I feared that they'd pee on my legs. So far I am from enlightenment, sadly.

But it was fun to be there between the sky and the earth, like a little metal staple holding together two sheets of paper in a gentle wind. We are all staples...

|

Do women count? (by Suzie) 



         Anyone interested in how the media portrays women should read “Do Women Count?” by E.J. Graff, senior researcher for the Gender & Justice Project of the Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism. She cites studies and examines issues. She looks at who writes the news and whom they interview. Some  conclusions: 
       … in the news media, women are mainly shown as having families and feelings and sexualities and bodies and problems. Men are shown to have authority and expertise and power and knowledge and money. Next time you watch a report about an earthquake or a famine, think about which sex is speaking about the geology or weather patterns … and which sex is crying over the dead body, or is the dead body.
        ... The media help create our image of the world, our internal picture of what’s normal and true. And when the news is being written by men about men, a significant part of reality is missing from view.
If the media ignores an issue or doesn't get it right, that can affect public policy. 

|

The real (Sojourner) Truth by Suzie 



          I keep seeing Internet posts that misconstrue Sojourner Truth’s positions.  Some praise Truth for confronting racist white suffragists in her famous 1851 speech, usually titled “Ain’t I a Woman?” The latest example is by the Rev. Valda Jean Combs.
          Frances Gage published the best-known version of Truth's speech. (You also can read her speeches at the Sojourner Truth Institute.) Truth concluded:
If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.
          Truth addressed her remarks to a white man who didn’t want to give women equal rights. If her speech was meant as a rebuke to white suffragists, no one seemed to notice at the time. They counted her as an ally and reproduced the speech.
          Combs makes another statement that has currency on the Web:
Sister Sojourner spoke out despite the pleas of white female suffragists who thought that demanding the vote for former slaves would doom their cause to failure.
          This is the opposite of what happened. Some people who wanted to guarantee rights for black men were afraid that extending rights to women would be too controversial. In an 1867 speech, Truth said:
There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a word about the colored women; and if colored men get their rights, and not colored women theirs, you see the colored men will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before. So I am for keeping the thing going while things are stirring; because if we wait till it is still, it will take a great while to get it going again.
          That proved prescient, as it took until 1920 for the United States to give women the vote. By then, the KKK was reaching the height of its power, and many black men had been kept from voting. Black men and women would continue to face intimidation until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
          Combs speaks of white women as if none worked for abolition and civil rights. In her book “Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol,” Nell Irvin Painter describes how Truth, Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and many others worked against slavery and for the rights of women and blacks before the Civil War. During the war, they focused on enslaved blacks.
In 1863, Stanton and Anthony formed the National Women’s Loyal League, the first organization to petition Congress to make emancipation permanent and universal in the 13th Amendment.
          After the war, some people, such as Douglass, considered this the “Negro’s hour,” by which they meant “black men.” They thought women’s rights were too controversial to include in the 14th and 15th Amendments. They said black men were in greater need of rights because they were more oppressed. Some black women agreed with them, as did many white men and women.
        Anthony, Stanton and other women were outraged. They had worked all their adult lives for rights for women and blacks. They refused to support the amendments unless women were included.
       (It's not an exact match, but a modern-day equivalent might be the controversy over whether to support a bill ending employment discrimination based on sexuality if it didn't also include gender identity.)
        Stanton was furious that uneducated men, both black and white, were getting to vote before an educated woman like herself. She ripped into them, with every nasty description she could use. These days, a lot of people point to her statements as proof she was racist. But Douglass still considered her free of racial prejudice, as Painter points out. After all, Stanton wasn’t talking about an educated and eloquent man like Douglass. This was mostly a class issue.
        (The bias against ignorant people voting remains today. Many progressives say nasty things about people they consider ignorant, such as “white trash.” Look at what people have said about the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries.)
           The fight over the 14th and 15th Amendments led to a split in the suffrage movement. Although she eventually sided against Anthony and Stanton, “Truth sought to heal divisions in her community,” Painter says. In 1872 in Rochester, she, Anthony and others tried to vote in the presidential election, even though they knew it was illegal. (Anthony was arrested for voting.)
           Read Stephanie Coontz for more about the fight over the 14th and 15th Amendments.
         Combs says: “Sojourner's place was to speak when she was asked, and to sit down and shut up when her agenda diverged from that of her suffragist sisters.” I disagree, I think she contributed to the debate. Perhaps she can set an example to Democrats as they try to come together in the general election.
     ETA: I didn't mean to imply that the Voting Rights Act stopped all intimidation, only that that was its intent. Clearly, problems continue to the current day. 
|

Thursday, May 22, 2008

On The Texas Decision 



A Texas appeals court has ruled that the state of Texas had no right to seize the children of the polygamist sect, because the children represented in that suit were not in immediate danger of abuse:

Except for five girls who became pregnant between the ages of 15 and 17, "there was no evidence of any physical abuse or harm to any other child," and none of the five were among the children whose return was being sought by the mothers in the case, it said.


I agree with the decision, in the very narrow legal sense. But of course I disagree with the way abuse is defined as only physical one, and with the idea that it's perfectly acceptable to groom young girls to accept abuse until the moment of the abuse comes. I also wonder whether it really is true that the sect appeared to have an unusually small number of teenage boys, and if it is true, what happened to the missing boys. I would think abandoning them somewhere would constitute abuse.

The wider area of how to protect children against abuse and of what the role of the government, neighbors and so on is can be difficult terrain to explore. It could be argued that these children have suffered from the very act of seizing them and from being separated from their parents. On the other hand, all this, once again, depends on how abuse is defined, because returning a young girl to the people who are grooming her for marriage with a much older relative is abuse, too.

In general, I'm worried about any children who are brought up in isolation from the rest of the society. They may "stay safe" that way or "stay religious" or whatever, but their isolation also means that they cannot learn alternative ways of living and cannot get help if they indeed are abused.

|

From The Picture Gallery 



From Shakes:





Some people in the comments asked whether it's possible to attack Hillary Clinton without using sexist slurs. Of course it is. But sexist slurs are much more fun to use. Sadly, they also reveal some deeply-hidden fears of those who apply them.

Take this cartoon, for instance. The reference to the possible racism of the Clinton campaign is a fair slur, from my point of view. It's about something that is verifiable or falsifiable, something that we can study and evaluate.

The slur about Hillary having a beard, on the other hand is not a fair one. She is not a man, doesn't actually have a beard, and the fact that the cartoon gives her one implies that she is overstepping the permissible boundaries, hunting in the fields which are reserved only for men.

That she is drawn all ugly in the cartoon is a fair slur in the sense that the tradition of painting your opponent ugly is a long one. That the writing is about her balls (testicles) is another sexist slur, based on the fact that women don't have testicles and shouldn't pretend to have them. Or rather, that people without testicles can't have power.

But the most fascinating aspect of the cartoon are all those fried balls, most of them in Hillary's bag. Here we are touching upon castration fears.

Was that enough calm and collected analysis for you, my dear readers?

|

Mindboggling 



Has sexism played a role in the Democratic Primary?

Here to answer that question are two great and impartial experts on the topic of gender:
Pat Buchanan and Mike Barnicle.





Mindboggling indeed. Or it would be, had pundits in this country more minds to boggle. I guess the best parable would be to have a television discussion about the right for chickens to be free and safe and the two experts would be foxes. Oh my.

I'm not sure why the pundits don't see what an incredible insult this discussion is to women.

|

Meet John McCain 



If you haven't met him already, you can get a fairly good idea from Mike Tomasky's book review. Tomasky writes about how McCain became "the maverick" rather than "the flip-flopper", and how he still is viewed as the "straight-talker" when he has pretty much relinquished all his old values and replaced them from the stock of the ueber-right.

As an example, only ten years ago McCain expressed support for Roe v. Wade. Now he is opposed to abortion even in the case of rape or incest. Or so Tomasky tells us.

|

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

On Being Funny 



Everybody knows that feminist are not funny. But there's a way in which I'm especially not funny, a kind of surrealistic field of humor where I think I'm laughing all alone.

For instance, I really want to write a book called My Life As An Old Man. And I want to troll blogs under the pseudonym Olive the Omnivorous Ovary. Not a fanged vagina, just something that nips the very tip....

That's just what you would glimpse from the door of my Insane Humor Room. I'm not going to tell you the other types of things which make me laugh, except that sometimes laughter is the only real self-defense against the vicissitudes of life. Well, perhaps I could mention that I really love the idea of titles which have nothing to do with the article or the post or the book they have been glued to, and I have no idea why that is funny to me. But when I imagine a book about, say, nuclear warfare, being called "Tea And Pancakes" I howl. Howl.

So why are feminists not funny? Or rather: Why is accusing someone of not being able to take a joke a legitimate form of defense? A lot of jokes are boring or contrived or just not very funny. A lot of jokes base the laugh-line on a shared understanding that Other People are stupid. Take the Blonde Jokes, for example. Those jokes are only funny if you really think that women with fair hair are very stupid people. I might not laugh at them for a very personal reason, a reason which has nothing to do with my sick sense of humor. Or its absence. Or hair color.

Can funniness be analyzed and understood? Probably not in the sense of creating a formula that would always work, and the very work of doing so would be extremely unfunny. But all humor depends on surprise. How that surprise is delivered varies, and different folks laugh at different sources of surprise: slapstick, situational comedy, word puns, story jokes and so on.

The surprise is needed. It also needs to trigger the laughter reaction. Why feminists don't find certain surprises funny is for the same reason that you throwing a cake in my face might make me surprised in a way not conducive to laughter. You, on the other hand, might get a nice belly laugh out of that. At least until you have figured out what happens to people who throw cakes in the faces of goddesses. Burp.

|

On Sexism And Hillary Clinton: A Gentle Correction 



Watch this from Media Matters of America:






Perhaps none of this gives you the kind of bolt of lightning AH! experience I had. Perhaps I got that one because I'm one very stupid goddess and it took me this long to see what appears to be a genuine misunderstanding among many pundits and, yes, also among many women who have blogged about this sexism/racism thing in the Democratic primaries.

The sexism is not bad, because it might hurt Hillary Clinton, just as the racism is not bad, because it might hurt Barack Obama. Not really.

That is a narrow and cramped and, dare I say it?, elitist view of what is going on, a view which revolves around the people in power and their political strategies and tactics. It is also a view which ignores the real problem altogether, this:

The sexist comments and the racist slurs are bad, because they are being washed, re-clad in Armani, presented back in high society, made to look innocent, and after all this they will be cropping up much more frequently everywhere, aimed at everyone who qualifies to be their victim. THAT's what is bad about them.

How can I make that any stronger and clearer? It can be any of us women or any person of color or both that will suffer from the new domestication of sexist and racists taunts. Any Of Us.

I have not written about the sexism in these Democratic Primaries in order to protect Hillary Clinton. She looks fairly well equipped to protect herself. I have written about it because sexism hurts all women, all little girls, all old ladies, women everywhere.

Gah. Perhaps what I'm talking about is still totally unclear. But if you read widely on this topic on blogs you will find that even many feminists have this view that the sexism is not really deplorable, because Hillary Clinton really is a monster bitch. That the dangers of the sexism really have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton should be made much more obvious. And no, voting for someone else will not save a woman voter from that sexism that is being incubated right now.

|

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

What Is This Thing? 



'Dancing With Stars' actually gives me some fodder for feminist writing! Isn't that great?

Not sure, because I have never watched the program, but I did read this interesting take on the way the largely female audience votes affects who wins:

Kristi Yamaguchi is clearly the most talented contestant on "Dancing With the Stars." But the question still looms heading into Tuesday's finale: Can a woman win the celebrity dance-off?

Men have won the mirrorball trophy during the show's past four seasons. The only woman to take the "Dancing" crown was Kelly Monaco in season one. With a viewership that's 75 percent women, plus brazen displays of bare skin and sex appeal from current male finalists Jason Taylor and Cristian de la Fuente, the hit ABC show still has plenty of suspense for the final episode.

And it drew plenty of viewers to Monday's broadcast -- 18.8 million, according to preliminary Nielsen figures. It was the most-watched program of the night by far, with the largest audience for a Monday edition of "Dancing" in six weeks.

"You obviously have to get the technique, but (also) compete with the personalities that all the boys have," Yamaguchi told The Associated Press after Monday's performances. "I think their smiles and their personalities melt hearts across the country."

Figure-skating champ Yamaguchi got a perfect score of 60 on Monday's show, and has regularly topped the judges' scoreboard throughout the sixth season of the ABC dance-off. But viewer votes count just as much, and the combination is what determines the winner.

So what's going on here? Is it that women just won't vote for women? Or is it that the female partners of the male celebrities are so good that they cause those pairs to win? Or could it be, could it just be, that the women vote the sexy guys in so that they can keep ogling them longer?

It sounds like that last alternative, based on the quoted article. If that's true, all sorts of avenues open up for feminist walks. For instance, we could amble down the Attraction Avenue, wondering whether women might, after all, get turned on by visual images of hot guys, even though we have repeatedly been told that They Do Not.

Then there's the Sex Object Street. Do women walk along that one as easily as men do, picking and choosing among the luscious bodies on show? And the Lofty Lane: Do we really want to see gender equality in that?

All this might be a dead end, of course, if the real reason for the biased voting is something else. (Hee.)

|

Best Wishes to Senator Kennedy And His Family 



I'm not sure how I feel about his illness being made into a major news item. Somehow it smells wrong to me, though I understand that people can learn about various illnesses by following the news stories of famous people who have them. Perhaps someone's life is going to be prolonged as a consequence?

There's a sense in which this society is fairly ruthless concerning people who are regarded as Public Individuals. All health concerns, all marital problems, all history must be made public. I can see the reasons for that but it does seem quite a tough price to pay for having a job with decision-making power.

|

Something Odd I Have Noticed 



One night a commentor on a liberal blog pointed out that Michelle Obama is a better orator than Barack Obama. The real politician in the family! But of course Michelle is not running for office. Barack is.

This made me think of a book I recently read in which the writer, a man, thanks his wife as the better writer in the family. He is the one who makes money out of writing in that family, though.

Then I looked back on all the comments about Elizabeth Edwards and her great political acumen, her good political plans and her strength and courage. And how I very often read what a great politician Eleanor Roosevelt was and how sad it was that she didn't have institutional power for her work until very, very late in her life.

There is something that unites all these comments: They are about women who are not career politicians or writers but the wives of career politicians or writers. And I'm wondering if the meaning of such praise isn't a little different when it is aimed at a woman who isn't, say, actively seeking office but is instead carrying out the traditionally decreed supporting role of a wife.

I'm wondering if that praise would very quickly change to something else should one of those women suddenly run for office herself. But perhaps I'm just overly sensitive right now.

|

Positive Polarization 



Sometimes the irony is just too much for me. The term in the title of this post is the name the Republicans gave their successful movement building in the early 1970's, as described by George Packer in a New Yorker article:

Nixon and Buchanan visited thirty-five states that fall, and in November the Republicans won a midterm landslide. It was the end of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, the beginning of his fall from power. In order to seize the Presidency in 1968, Nixon had to live down his history of nasty politicking, and he ran that year as a uniter. But his Administration adopted an undercover strategy for building a Republican majority, working to create the impression that there were two Americas: the quiet, ordinary, patriotic, religious, law-abiding Many, and the noisy, élitist, amoral, disorderly, condescending Few.

This strategy was put into action near the end of Nixon's first year in office, when antiwar demonstrators were becoming a disruptive presence in Washington. Buchanan recalls urging Nixon, "We've got to use the siege gun of the Presidency, and go right after these guys." On November 3, 1969, Nixon went on national television to speak about the need to avoid a shameful defeat in Vietnam. Looking benignly into the camera, he concluded, "And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of Americans—I ask for your support." It was the most successful speech of his Presidency. Newscasters criticized him for being divisive and for offering no new vision on Vietnam, but tens of thousands of telegrams and letters expressing approval poured into the White House. It was Nixon's particular political genius to rouse simultaneously the contempt of the bien-pensants and the admiration of those who felt the sting of that contempt in their own lives.

Buchanan urged Nixon to enlist his Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, in a battle against the press. In November, Nixon sent Agnew—despised as dull-witted by the media—on the road, where he denounced "this small and unelected élite" of editors, anchormen, and analysts. Buchanan recalls watching a broadcast of one such speech—which he had written for Agnew—on a television in his White House office. Joining him was his colleague Kevin Phillips, who had just published "The Emerging Republican Majority," which marshalled electoral data to support a prophecy that Sun Belt conservatism—like Jacksonian Democracy, Republican industrialism, and New Deal liberalism—would dominate American politics for the next thirty-two or thirty-six years. (As it turns out, Phillips was slightly too modest.) When Agnew finished his diatribe, Phillips said two words: "Positive polarization."

There you have it. Tearing apart a country is positive polarization.

But of course this was a clever answer to the perennial problem conservatives have: How to get enough voters when their natural constituency is pretty small, consisting largely of the moneyed elites.

To get more voters, something had to be given to them. Because the Republicans weren't going to give them money or government programs, they had to be thrown the corpses of their countrymen and -women instead, in that stupid drama called the "culture wars." Well, not the corpses, but that wasn't for lack of trying. Any amount of social disruption and hatred was an acceptable price for someone to pay, as long as the real money kept flowing back to the same bank accounts as always.

Hence the rise of social conservatism. It's cheap, it provokes deep emotions and it costs the powerful in the Republican Party nothing. Even among the Democrats some see it as a purely cultural issue, something trivial, not real politics. But social conservatism is a very real threat to those whose traditional social position has been an oppressed one. That would be us ladies.

Packer's piece is fascinating if you don't mind reading about Republican guys doing Republican guy things. He even admits that the conservative movement is in trouble and will need new ideas. These are the new ideas he proposes:

It's probably not an accident that the most compelling account of the crisis was written by two conservatives who are still in their twenties and have made their careers outside movement institutions. Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, editors at the Atlantic Monthly, are eager to cut loose the dead weight of the Gingrich and Bush years. In their forthcoming book, "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream" (Doubleday), Douthat and Salam are writing about, if not for, what they call "Sam's Club Republicans"—members of the white working class, who are the descendants of Nixon's "northern ethnics and southern Protestants" and the Reagan Democrats of the eighties. In their analysis, America is divided between the working class (defined as those without a college education) and a "mass upper class" of the college educated, who are culturally liberal and increasingly Democratic. The New Deal, the authors acknowledge, provided a sense of security to working-class families; the upheavals of the sixties and afterward broke it down. Their emphasis is on the disintegration of working-class cohesion, which they blame on "crime, contraception, and growing economic inequality."

Crime, contraception and growing economic inequality? Who is being bought out here at whose expense? In any case, the growing economic inequality is one consequence of all that the Republicans have supported: Reduced taxes for the top earners of this country, increased liberalization of international trade and outsourcing, a fraying social welfare net. Crime tends to increase with worsening economic times, too.

But contraception? The new conservative movement is going to be a movement against contraception? It sounds like the movement is going to be against women, even more openly than the old one has been.

Nah. I don't think it will wash.

|

Today's Sad Thought 



If taking down evil dictators really was the reason for the Iraq occupation, how come aren't there any troops gathering at the borders of Burma?

|

Monday, May 19, 2008

No Woman Zones 



That is what some parts of Iraq appear to now have, after these years of liberation of the Iraqi people:

With US forces in Iraq now funding both Sunni and Shia tribal leaders in an effort to stabilise the country, conditions for women grow deadlier by the day. Islamist leaders have imposed new restrictions on women, including prohibitions on work, bans on travel without a muhram (male guardian), and compulsory veiling.

According to the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), formed in Baghdad in 2003, women are harassed if they appear in the streets of most Iraqi cities and towns, educational institutions, or work places. Now there are even "no woman zones" in some southern cities controlled by Islamist parties and tribal leaders.

It's a lot like the rules here about dogs. Dogs must always be accompanied, cannot be off-leash and cannot enter certain places (supermarkets, restaurants) at all.

Did you find that comparison insulting? And if you did, why? Because I'm comparing women to dogs, unclean animals in many cultures? Because I'm judging a culture? Or because it is disgusting that women can be seen as deserving this kind of treatment anywhere on this earth?

Now, what would help the women of Iraq? Their country is all liberated, though not for their benefit, of course. Most Iraqis dislike George Bush and the American forces. What would the next step forward be for George Bush, on this field consisting of quicksand?

How about this:

After basking in a showy celebration of America's close ties with Israel, President Bush criticized other Middle East leaders on Sunday, prodding them to expand their economies, offer equal opportunity to women and embrace democracy if they want peace to become reality.

Now THAT will really make feminism look good in Iraq.

|

Jack and Jill Went Up The Hill. Or the Stories We Tell About Gender and Science. 



Elaine McArdle's recent piece in the Boston Globe about why women are so rare in physics and engineering and computing and mathematics and such other "hard" sciences offers a scrumptious example of gender politics in the guise of simply pretending to report on objective research. Just scrumptious. The article should be taught in all anti-feminist schools, because McArdle writes well, manages to ignore all evidence which doesn't support the thesis she is making, yet adds enough quiet muttering at the very end of the piece to come across as an impartial observer.

McArdle's main thesis is an old one, the second oldest in the "field" of trying to explain the scarcity of women in sciences as innocuous. The oldest argument is that female creatures can't do numbers. The second oldest is that they don't want to do numbers. That they don't want to do numbers makes it ok not to have them trying to do them. Thus, we can all relax. The world is not a sexist place at all and What Is Is For A Good Reason.

According to this story, and the story McArdle discusses, girls "self-select" themselves out of mathematics, physics and computer science, away from the inorganic fields towards the fertile, nurturing organic fields. It's not discrimination that causes the difference but pure sex-linked preference. That those hard and inorganic fields also happen to be the ones that pay the best, the ones that have most prestige, well, that is ignored, because then the Good Thing angle would be lost.

We don't mention money in these pieces, nope. Neither do we fret over what "preference" means when a girl deciding to study physics might be the only girl in a laboratory where the jokes that fly are about cunts. None of this matters when it's possible to say this:

Rosenbloom and his colleagues used a standard personality-inventory test to measure people's preferences for different kinds of work. In general, Rosenbloom's study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers - and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.

Personal preference, Rosenbloom and his group concluded, was the single largest determinative factor in whether women went into IT. They calculated that preference accounted for about two-thirds of the gender imbalance in the field. The study was published in November in the Journal of Economic Psychology.

It may seem like a cliche - or rank sexism - to say women like to work with people, and men prefer to work with things. Rosenbloom acknowledges that, but says that whether due to socialization or "more basic differences," the genders on average demonstrate different vocational interests.

"It sounds like stereotypes," he said in an interview, "but these stereotypes have a germ of truth."

In the language of the social sciences, Rosenbloom found that the women were "self-selecting" out of IT careers.

Do you know what I love? I love reading the explanations how people like Rosenbloom are all for gender-equality to begin with, but how the studies they conduct come up with findings which suggest it's just not possible. Because everybody who carries out studies about gender has prior beliefs. It's not possible to be human and not to have those. Indeed, most people who study differences by gender believe that they exist and just want to justify them or believe that they don't exist and want to justify that.

To see what stinks in all this, let us take a step backwards, away from this particular article and into the wider field of science politics about gender. All comfortable now? Sit back and notice that the debate about women and numbers has its rough mirror image: the debate about boys' trouble at school. Do you notice anything different in those two big stories? Do you happen to notice, say, that we never read someone writing that maybe boys just self-select away from education? Maybe they are not just interested in staying at school or in going to college? I don't recall ever reading a single article like that. Nope, all the articles I've read about the topic have as their goal a greater success rate for boys. Boys must be educated! Nobody suggests that they might choose not be educated and that we should honor that free and democratic choice.

But when it comes to girls and science, the story immediately changes. Perhaps it's girls themselves who choose not to become scientists? Perhaps that's Just How Things Are?

The two big stories have other odd differences: The stories about boys-and-schools are mostly about what is wrong with schools that makes boys less than thrive. The stories about girls-and-science are more complicated, often focusing on what is wrong with girls rather than with the culture of science. Or that nothing is wrong at all, because girls just don't want to do science.

Mmm. Are you still sitting comfortably in that nice room called the politics of gender studies? Consider the basic argument of the McArdle piece: that women prefer working with people and men with tools and concepts. Let's take it at face value. What should we conclude about our societies if we know this argument but have otherwise arrived from outer space just an hour ago?

Perhaps that all politics should be run by women? Politics is all about people and how people relate to each other, is it not? The military should also be full of women, given that wars are all about interpersonal contact. The television. We should see nothing but female pundits, given women's love of words and people. Most of all, our leaders must be women. Leadership is all about human relationships and human psychology.

That we are not seeing any of this just might suggest to you that the research McArdle quotes is biased and has a hidden intention. What that intention is I leave for you to figure out.

Sigh.

Finally, consider that false dualism between "likes tools and machines" and "likes to work with people". Almost all work involves tools and machines and almost all work involves working with people. A dentist uses tools in the mouths of people. A physics professor works with people in the classroom or in the laboratory. There are extremely few jobs which are only about tools and machines or only about people. However, in some jobs the people you work with will approve of your presence in that field, whereas in other fields your presence in that field will cause you extra hardship and struggle. Studies like the ones McArdle highlights don't appear to address that issue at all.

But other studies do. For example:

BACK in the bad old days, the workplace was a battleground, where sexist jokes and assumptions were the norm.

Women were shut off from promotion by an old boys' network that favored its own. They went to meetings and were often the only women in the room.

All that has changed in the last three decades, except where it has not. In the worlds of science, engineering and technology, it seems, the past is still very much present.

"It's almost a time warp," said Sylvia Ann Hewlett, the founder of the Center for Work-Life Policy, a nonprofit organization that studies women and work. "All the predatory and demeaning and discriminatory stuff that went on in workplaces 20, 30 years ago is alive and well in these professions."

That is the conclusion of the center's latest study, which will be published in the Harvard Business Review in June.

Based on data from 2,493 workers (1,493 women and 1,000 men) polled from March 2006 through October 2007 and hundreds more interviewed in focus groups, the report paints a portrait of a macho culture where women are very much outsiders, and where those who do enter are likely to eventually leave.

The study was conceived in response to the highly criticized assertion three years ago, by the then-president of Harvard, that women were not well represented in the science because they lacked what it took to excel there.

The purpose of the work-life center's survey was to measure the size of the gender gap and to decipher why women leave the science, engineering and technology professions in disproportionate numbers.

The problem isn't that women aren't making strides in education in the hard sciences. According to a National Science Foundation report in 2006, 46 percent of Ph.D. degrees in the biological sciences are awarded to women (compared with 31 percent two decades ago); 31 percent of the Ph.D. degrees in chemistry go to women, compared with 18 percent 20 years ago.

And, women enter science engineering and technology (known as the SET professions) in sizable numbers. In fact, 41 percent of workers on the earliest rungs of SET career ladder are women, the study found, with the highest representation in scientific and medical research (66 percent) and the lowest in engineering (21 percent).

They also do well at the start, with 75 percent of women age 25 to 29 being described as "superb," "excellent" or "outstanding" on their performance reviews, words used for 61 percent of men in the same age group.

An exodus occurs around age 35 to 40. Fifty-two percent drop out, the report warned, with some leaving for "softer" jobs in the sciences human resources rather than lab bench work, for instance, and others for different work entirely. That is twice the rate of men in the SET industries, and higher than the attrition rate of women in law or investment banking.

The reasons pinpointed in the report are many, but they all have their roots in what the authors describe as a pervasive macho culture.

Engineers have their "hard hat culture," while biological and chemical scientists find themselves in the "lab coat" culture and computer experts inhabit a "geek culture." What they all have in common is that they are "at best unsupportive and at worst downright hostile to women," the study said.

So when women "self-select" out of careers in science and engineering, do they do that because they don't like tools and machines or because of the "unsupportive and at worst downright hostile" culture? Or both or neither?

Beats me. But nobody is making a "free choice" without considering what the job would be like, day after day, or without considering the culture of that job.
----
Do read the story about Finn and Josephine in the NYT article, by the way. Then wonder why this article appears under the heading "Fashion" on the pages of that august newspaper.

|

Thanks! Or: Psst. I'm Back. 



Anthony and Suzie did such a great job minding the Snakepit Inc. that I really wanted to stay asleep for another month or two. I owe them and love them more than chocolate. Thank you!

And thank you, Anthony, for these last years. May the snakes always guard your path and make you healthy, happy and victorious in all you do.

|

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Afterword 

I’ve had a request to say why I’m ending things now, during the middle of an important election year. Considering what I’ve urged this is a fair request. If I thought that my blogging was vitally important to defeating the Republican Party this fall I’d continue. To believe my blogging is crucial would open me up to entirely justified accusations of delusions of grandeur. I think that my ability to edit a voters list, stuff envelopes, staple together signs, hell, to set up folding chairs and take them down, are more politically potent than my writing. I am happy to report that the fact I have an accent that makes me sound like the old Maine farmer I am prevents them from pressing me to make calls. Campaign work is a big part of it.

Another part is that I have a serious, chronic health problem which has come back for the second year running. It is rarely life threatening but it does require management. I’ve lost about a fifth of my body weight in the past year, I wasn’t exactly robust before. The resulting fatigue is debilitating and prevents me from researching and writing to the level I’d want. I had considered writing it up as “A Man Who Is Tired Of Oatmeal Is A Man Who Is Tired of Life” but the jokes were strained. Since someone has asked, no, it’s not an infectious disease.

I’ve enjoyed writing for Echidne and participating in her blog community. I especially like the fact that despite her divinity her readers don’t act like a bunch of addled groupies trying to get the popular teacher’s attention. I mean, yech! You know the blogs I’m talking about.

That can’t be said of many of the other blog communities, the snarky tone and increasingly juvenile level of coercive conformity on those, especially surrounding the divisive nomination contest, have taken a tole on both spirit and health. The political blogs are only useful to the extent that they produce results in politics that improve lives and save the environment. In short, winning elections and compromising to make law. In too many cases the essential practicalities of winning in politics are overshadowed on the blogs by other issues ranging from the totally silly to the cruelly asinine. They have the potential to split us and to defeat us both before and after the election. Posing, posturing, pretend progressives prevent progress... sorry, reading Joyce just now.

Anyway, I’m off. Completely off, for the time being. I wish all of you a good year. If I live, I’ll return to blogs. If I die, I’ll go to blogs.

I thank Echidne, Suzie, Blue Lily and the rest of the community here and may send a missive occasionally.

Good bye,

Anthony McCarthy
|

Penultimate Advice by Anthony McCarthy 

My friends, conservatives and other opponents on many blogs have brandished one of the most feared weapons from the armamentarium of those trying to avoid discussing the topic. I have been accused of conceit many times. While I suspect that this is due to my superannuated style of expressing myself, when it's not the Benadryl doing the typing, it's happened often enough to be at least symptomatic of something. I don't have the time to sort it out.

The late John Kenneth Galbraith didn't have much use for the virtue of modesty. He held it to be overrated. He might have been right about that, but more practically, when a leftist lets modesty get in the way they don't fight aggressively for the leftist agenda.

My fellow leftists, please, make the same sacrifice I have. Put aside that most charming of personal traits, demure modesty. It has no place in a brawl and politics is a brawl. If someone, even your inner liberal niceness angel, - mine is an obnoxious, nagging pest named Nat - scolds that you are being immodest, consider it to be a noble and worthwhile sacrifice for the cause. If your angel keeps bugging you, promise it you'll try to cut down on the use of the first person.

Conservatives, motivated only by greed and hate, have much to be modest about. But you don't see them hiding behind the couch.
|

Have The Courage To Believe You Are Right, Everything Depends On That. by Anthony McCarthy 

Do you think that your political positions are morally superior to positions you've rejected? Sounds strange when you put it that way, doesn't it. Why would you hold a position you weren't convinced was morally superior? Only two possibilities come to mind, unthinkingly following tradition and practicing self-interest divorced from morals. There are some positions that seem to be adopted by reason alone but since just about everything government does has an effect on the well being of someone, those certainly have a moral dimension, thought about or not.

The first post on my blog claimed our right to believe the moral superiority of our political positions and their firm base in reason. We have to stop cowering in conditional statements and apologetic poses of false modesty. Those are ineffective, weak and are not honest. It's not our personal virtue that is at question, it doesn't all come down to us. It's that our political positions are firmly grounded in the common good, generosity over greed and facing that large parts of our law favor the wealthy few over the rest with no basis other than that they have the power to bend the law to their liking. If anyone doesn't agree that our positions are superior we should require better arguments than "that's the way it is" and "you're self-righteous" because that's about all there is to most of it.

The fear of asserting the moral superiority of liberalism is that we'll be as obnoxious as William Bennett, that moral exemplar of the right, and the rest of those modern moral exemplars who lecture us continually while enjoying lives that would make ancient Roman aristocrats blanche. Now that Ann Coulter has joined that number there is no doubt that morality or even sanity are not requirements to march in with them. There are people who like to lord their own superiority over other people but they are mighty few on the left as compared to those on the right. Conservatives certainly haven't suffered any ill effects from their being moral nags.

Of course, if we stand behind our convictions they will accuse us of self-righteousness. They do now even when there is a total absence of any assertion of righteousness on our part. As mentioned this is in the face of the tidal wave of finger waving everyone but the wealthy gets from the right wing axis of drivel. They'll do it anyway but why should we listen to them? Are you afraid of annoying conservatives? If one of us gets too full of themselves that 's the time to tell the person to cut it out but it's no reason to stop believing in our positions.

Conservatives, as always, make the mistake of thinking that morality is all about them, an adornment of their sacred selves. That's how they see it and they think that's the way everyone does. But that's their problem, not ours.

People on the left have some great examples to follow. There is no doubt that Martin Luther King had a deep knowledge of his moral failings. There isn't a great moral leader who isn't aware of their flaws. And there were people like J. Edgar Hoover to remind him if he ever forgot. But can you doubt that he had absolute faith in the rightness of his beliefs? He put his life, the lives of his family and friends, the bodies and lives of countless people on the line for those beliefs over and over again. And no one knew more about what that really risked than he did. He knew from experience that some day the attacks he and his family had survived would likely end in one that would kill them. He knew what that looked like, he had seen it with his own eyes. Keeping on with that knowledge doesn't come without complete conviction.

If we don't have the courage to believe in the morality of our positions, we won't ever have the courage to change anything.
|

Music Primer by Anthony McCarthy 

If I had it to do all over again, maybe I should have written more about music, the subject of my professional training. One thing I’d been thinking about but never got around to was saying how much I missed Jan DeGaetani, the singer whose voice and interpretative genius I miss most since her too-early death.

Well, here’s what I can tell you fast.

Never forget that music is sound, it isn’t symbols on a page or words about music. It is the sound, heard and experienced.

Thorough ear training, sight-singing and the ability to accurately write down melodies, harmonies, rhythms that are heard in the ear or head is the most neglected and most useful of academic musical subjects. Usually the piddling courses at universities (way too late to start this training) carry a fractional credit and are given at the same time as full-credit “theory” classes. Without the ear training the “theory” classes would be better substituted by courses in producing clear hand-written scores, that’s about all it ends up being in the end. Universities never change their stupid practices, composers and teachers as fine as Roger Sessions and Paul Hindemith have been railing against this idiocy for longer than they lived. My fellow musicians and students of music, you’re on your own with this subject, even your instrumental or voice teacher isn’t going to teach it to you.

Time is short, you have to make choose your learning materials for their practicality and get the most out of those as you learn. Take Bartok’s Mikrokosmos Volume 1. Learn to sing the first six single line melodies, in time - with that rest in the first one - on using fixed do. Then, one by one, learn the entire volume before going on to Volume II. Always used fixed do in its extended form, the one that assigns a single phoneme to each of the natural pitches and each of the sharp and flat ones. “C” is “do”, “F” is “fa”, “Bb” is “te” “Db” is “ra”etc. Since there isn’t one published that I’ve ever found, you’ll need to decide for yourself what syllables to assign to double sharps and flats. Don’t waste your time with moveable do, it is harder to learn and far less useful. In four decades of practicing music I have never once had an instance when my use of fixed do was a practical problem, not a single time. Use what is most practical for you as an individual musician, what is learned most easily which works is the one to go with.

Learn all of the melodies in the first volume of the Mikrokosmos this way, memorize them, play them on your instrument and on a keyboard. Studying the Mikrokosmos is a great way to begin learning to play a keyboard. If you pursue a major in music you’re going to have to use it anyway.

Transpose the melodies you learn on your instrument and on the keyboard gradually to all the keys. Go as gradually as you need to, don’t spend much more than a quarter of an hour a day on this. Use appropriate fingerings for your hands. Transposing these melodies carefully is an easy way to learn the very practical and neglected skill of transposition, these pieces are perfect for that. Learn the sight-singing intervals for the transpositions as you practice this, either singing them away from the instrument or “thinking” them as you play the piece. This is the most basic and essential foundation to harmony and counterpoint, it is vastly more important and useful than anything you’ll learn from pouring through “Piston” unprepared. Never sing along with your playing, sing-along piano players are a blight on the art of music.

Learn all of the scales, modes and chords of western common practice on the fixed-do syllables. You will learn a lot more doing this than in producing those useless note-drawing exercises of university “theory” classes. You might be better off learning them from a jazz harmony book than from any “classical” source I’ve discovered. Learn them all starting with triads and their inversions, learning the 7th chords, then the various others, through 9th and at least to 13th chords. Then sing them as arppegios singly, and in succession with other chords. Again, use a jazz harmony book or just a fake book if you can’t find others. Chords, modes, scales, jazz musicians deal with those more directly than most classical musicians who reproduce what the composer has put on the page. Don’t strain your voice, you can always “sing” them in your head, checking the pitch on an instrument.

Learn to play rhythms, rock solid, no excuses, starting slowly, increasing the metronome speed gradually. You can learn a lot of technique by just playing things in time. You will often find that tension is actually enhanced by the exigencies of in tempo playing that get diluted in the lazy “rubato” self-indulgences explained by inferior musicians as “expressing themselves”. If you’re a classical player you’re supposed to be expressing the composer, not yourself. The composer knew how to write tempo indications in the music where they want them, what makes you think you know better than them? Of course, this isn’t subject to a hard and fast rule but you should always be able to play something in strict time, then the choice is available to you to make instead of using “expression” as an excuse for sloppy, diluted playing.

I could go on, the subject is endless. I’d suggest reading Ralph Kirkpatrick’s book about the Well Tempered Clavier but only after you’ve gone through at least the first two volumes of the Mikrokosmos the way I advocate above first. You don’t know how much I am aching to go into learning species counterpoint just now.
|

Deja Vu or Lessons Learned In Practical Politics by Anthony McCarthy 

The gay marriage decision in California coming in a presidential election year carries some deja vu baggage, the one in Massachusetts didn’t do John Kerry any favors. The issue will be used by Republicans appealing to their base of bigots. The irony of having someone like McCain who dumped his first wife running against a candidate, either of whose first marriages seems solid and committed, on the basis of “marriage protection” might carry a few opportunities that Kerry didn’t have but the issue will eat into time spent on stronger ones for Democrats. It’s an issue that would have been better brought in an off-year. But we’ve got what the court schedule in California provided to us.

This time, at least, there is the opportunity to point to the fact that in Massachusetts the issue didn’t lead to broken, woman-man marriages. I’d try arguing that perhaps MA, as the least divorced state, actually was demonstrating how pro-marriage it is by extending the right to lesbians and gay men. I couldn’t find the statistics for the period after the court ruling, but it should be possible to show there wasn’t an epidemic of straight divorce following their Supreme Court decision. Barney Frank’s pointing out that those against equal rights are arguing against people who want to be gainfully employed, have the right to serve their country in the military and have legally sanctioned marriages.

Protecting the decision in California will hinge on lobbying the grass roots, if the bigots get their ballot initiative, which they probably will. This should be an example of the necessity of doing that in the end, anyway. Winning these cases in state courts isn’t really the end, it’s the middle step in the process. It was due only to the peculiarities of the Massachusetts rules governing referendums that prevented the issue of civil rights of a minority being subjected to the whim of the majority. We can’t count on that in many states, we can’t count on the state courts or legislatures in most places. I hope no one is still depending on the U.S. Supreme Court after the increasingly regressive post Warren court. In the end this issue is going to depend on the publics’ acceptance of it and that will not come from anything other than presenting them with the positive reality of individual marriages. It’s encouraging to see that some of the folks in California get it.

"What we've seen in the example of Massachusetts is personalize, personalize, personalize," said Stuart Gaffney, 45, who, with his partner, John Lewis, was a plaintiff in the California case. "When this issue is personalized, people understand it's about our common humanity and about our shared desire to marry the person you love. And when it's more abstract, that works against us."

It’s going to take that approach everywhere and it’s going to be up against the gaudiest, raunchiest images and stupidest things said by self-involved jerks that can be pinned on gay people in general. They will provide the anti-equality side with some of their most useful stuff. But I’ve made that argument here this weekend already.

Note: Look at this as the practical reality of protecting equal rights on the basis of individual cases and contrast it with the lumping of individuals into averages by social science in this article about unequal representation of women in the hard sciences and technology, also in today’s Boston Globe. Which approach do you think is more likely to result in increased opportunities and free choices for individuals and which is going to be used as a tool for propping up an unequal status quo? Notice, when you read the article, how even as the author cites insurmountable complications in gathering data and how they would have had to leave aside some crucial facts in the lives of the individuals purported to comprise their study, the reduction in the end seems simple when it certainly isn't. You're more likely to increase civil rights protection going with individual examples people can see than in providing an oversimplified result of numbers crunching. It's in the individual cases that the inequity expresses itself, not in the lump generalization.
|

Saturday, May 17, 2008

One: After Jack by Anthony McCarthy 

Work had ended early. He was getting down to a long Friday evening, not planning to, nothing was planned. Supper, watching some TV. No, there’d be nothing on. He'd listen to music. He didn’t have any work to do. The paper was read. He didn’t have any expectation of anyone coming to see him or calling him. They never did. He wouldn’t go out, there was no bar that would welcome his presence. He’d finished with drinking a few years earlier anyway. He wouldn’t be going to meet up with anyone. There wasn’t anyone he wanted to see or who would notice his absence. He didn’t mind, he liked being alone. It was a little past three, the drizzle that ended his work day was getting heavier, he should get out of his wet boots. But he was eating crackers and peanut butter and drinking a cup of coffee before bothering. He liked the feeling of the hot cup in his cold hands, the feeling of the warm vapors on his face in the cold air. He didn’t even realize that he was enjoying it. If he knew he wasn’t thinking about Jack he would have thought it was strange. Jack had taken up so many of his solitary times before. He hardly took up any, now. Jack, the love of his youth, the one who had taught him to experience things without noticing them, maybe the reason he liked to be alone so much now . “You think too much,” Jack’s first words when he’d said, “I think I’m in love with you,”. After the months it took him to say it, the crises. Jack’s last words, that was all Jack said. Jack wasn’t about thinking, he acted. Always all right there, nothing buffered. It was so strange that someone like that could fade out of the life of someone like him, even on a silent Friday afternoon drinking coffee alone in his kitchen. It would have seemed strange, if he’d thought about it.

Beginning of “Gay Man, Small Town”, Anthony McCarthy, 1998
|

This Will Only Take About A Minute 

Ernst H. Papier: Lefting

Guy Livingston - piano

A whole lot of music packed into one minute.

posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

Paying Dues Emptying The Trunk posted by Anthony McCarthy 

Looking for important and practical things to post over the past two years, I’d thought about an item legendary to students of the music of Charles Mingus and found it but never got around to posting a link. So, for those of you who didn’t take advantage of this “subscription bonus” for Changes Magazine in the 1970s, here is Charles Mingus’ pamphlet telling how he toilet trained his cat, Nightlife.
|

“... from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us...” 

Nuh, forget His Nibs, this is Nockels' wake.

Billie Holiday and Teddy Wilson: What a Little Moonlight Can Do
|

Other than Diverting Details by Anthony McCarthy 

& It is the real life results of moral or ideological positions that govern their rightness or correctness, not their theoretical or traditional foundations or logical discourse. Results that injure living beings, certainly including people, are a good indication that the position is wrong and should be changed or junked. Those that don’t produce good results or even any results at all are sterile and useful only to distract people from finding what works.

& Advocating putting the lives of people before abstract principles and intellectual doctrines will be incomprehensible to many of the brightest among us. They won’t see either the forest or the trees unless those are cut down for paper production. Our educations lie to us. Theories are not the things they purport to govern, ideological traditions aren’t real life. They are useful only to the extent that they produce beneficial results, otherwise they’re just items on a résumé or a publication list. The teaching of theory is an inadequate substitute for teaching skills and arts. Theory is an abstraction, it isn’t the thing itself, it can’t be substituted for the thing itself in real life and yield good results. This is even true within science, where, at least, they are supposed to remember that the theories are contingent.

& Recently there has been an increase in intellectual bigotry on the left that splits it and rejects the work and ideas of those who have produced good results in the past. Often the side insisting on black balling another haven’t produced any good results, sometimes they lay claim to those produced by the side they are attempting to supercede. This is almost always a bad idea. It’s not as if there are hoards of us to spare. The left is too short handed to give up willing hands at the behest of those who don’t produce. Those who insist that they won’t work with “them” had better produce in both numbers and results or they should be shown the door.

& The interests of an intellectual elite will often be at odds with those of political success for the left. The frequent temptation of intellectuals is to try to saddle the left with their ideas, often at odds with the most basic foundations of democracy and, even, of the continued life of the planet. People who put themselves before the common good are not leftists, no matter what the facade alleges to represent. They are just mistaken as to where their real ideological home lies. We shouldn’t indulge their confusion. Anyone who is more interested in their or their ideologies’ reputation within the intelligentsia than in people who live in trailers is waving a warning flag to the rest of us to use extreme caution. A lot of the disinterest in people such as those who live in trailers is the result of snobbery. Snobs don’t make good leftists.

& When Republicans and their kept media started on their strategy of lying about the price of governmental services and public works projects and the effectiveness of those, regardless of the actual record, they guaranteed that people honest about what those cost would be driven out of office. The results are vital public services being starved of necessary money, the pillage of those by sleazy corporations and the public’s ever more cynical view of the common good. The only way to fix that is by attacking their media which continually promotes their lies even as their parent companies profit from the plunge to the bottom. Virtually all of broadcast and cable are the servants or Republican crooks, they don’t deserve our support, they deserve our attacks.

& The diversion value of an issue is no reflection on its importance. Frequently the value as diversion of an issue is a good indication of its potential to divert attention from more important but more complicated and, therefore, less diverting subjects.

& A lot of people who comment on blog threads need to grow up. We all do. We should feel just bad enough about this fact to make ourselves grow up and act like decent adults, not enough to get discouraged.

& As a personal note: I am profoundly discouraged that a quarter of a century into the AIDS epidemic that young gay men, who have never known a world before AIDS, are practicing unsafe sex. I suppose it is the same kind of discouragement that the continued epidemic of teenaged pregnancy brings. We need to stop lying about sex, both in education for contraception and about the irresponsibility of dangerous sexual practices. As above, the corporate media is largely to blame for both. Masturbation, solo or mutual, should be promoted. This is a more important issue than whether or not Jon Stewart can say “fuck” unbleeped.
|

Abbey Lincoln, Max Roach Quintet: “Freedom Now”. 

Can’t find my old vinyl copy of “We Insist!”, don’t remember but seem to remember that “Freedom Now!” had another movement and I also remember a different order, though Max Roach could have changed those on different occasions. Doesn’t matter, these four are some of the highest quality You Tubes I’ve seen yet.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

Always Beginning by Anthony McCarthy 

If someone could find a way to change the past, it would probably be worth doing sometime. I deduce from the fact that no one has fixed the mistakes of the past century, including the worst our species has devised, to date, that no one interested in us will ever find a way to do that. Though it’s possible that the discovery is in such a remote future that they have no idea we are waiting here for remedial relief. It’s fun to think of the possibilities. In a dark Irish sort of way.

T
he past includes the recent past, from what happened the beginning of the presidential campaign to the last insult posted by a Republican posing as a Democrat on some blog thread or radio call-in a minute ago*. As said in one of the pieces I posted this week, the future contains the near future. The future beyond it has to go through next year and will be made from what happens next year.

We go on from now. Now is the ever renewing beginning of what comes. We have the present to work with, we can’t fix the past, deleting blog comments possibly excepted. We don’t have access to tinker with the future. We never do.

We’ve got to heal the Democratic Party now, if our first attempt doesn’t work we have to keep trying. Like it or not the Democratic Party is our only tool to gain political influence in 2008, 2009 or the foreseeable future. When the stakes are the future of the planet, democracy and a decent life, giving up is no option, passing up an imperfect vehicle for another alleged to be superior but which isn’t in sight, is foolish. The line for that one has been forming for the entire modern history of the left and there’s no sign of it turning into the road yet.

We are always beginning. If not us as individuals, those who continue on and come after us. The faster we all grow up, take what is useful from the past and overlook what will only make the future worse, the faster we can begin to succeed. We leave a legacy to those who come after, it can be useful or it can be a burden to them. The left seems to be better at leaving ideological burdens than it does something useful. A lot of times the ideological white-elephant was never more than a personal or cult indulgence of no importance or practical value. Sometimes the thing was pretty shoddy to begin with. You wonder why the heirs of our messes feel obligated to take the useless, out of date, doodads along with a small collection of useful tools. They aren’t under any moral obligation to us to take it all. No rule of logic, fairness or equity binds them to take everything we leave them. Taking it to placate the feelings of those insisting on it seems kind except that the resulting costs to the work to save and improve lives are a far greater price to those least able to afford it. Prolonging those ridiculous feuds indulged in and beloved by cults on the left is criminal insanity. I hope those coming after will junk a lot of what comes down to them. I hope they will look around other places to find whatever works to make life more secure, more equitable and more just. The politics of equality and justice isn’t an ideological game played for the entertainment of a ruling elite or those with a published record to defend, it’s a matter of who lives and who dies too young. And that includes all of us.

Giving up is no option, our opponents won’t. They never will. That’s why we have to do what’s smart instead of what we might most desire or which will gain us the most status. More than just our most cherished self and its fixations are at stake, infinitely more than that. We have to put those aside and work together on the basis of collaboration and compromise. That’s the only means to a better future. What the future makes of what we provide them is in their hands, not ours. That’s their beginning.

* Heard a most obvious call-in Republican plant posing as a McCain Democrat on Diane Rehm’s show yesterday.
|

Friday, May 16, 2008

Musings on identity: How do we define ethnicity? (by Suzie) 



           My mother’s biological father was American Indian, but we rarely spoke of it. I wrote my grandparents almost every week, starting when I was a kid, but I never told them that I knew the shameful secret: that Grandma had gotten pregnant by another man before she knew Grandpa, and that Grandpa later adopted Mom.
           I didn’t think of this other man as my grandfather, and I didn’t dwell on his being Indian. With green eyes and red hair, Mom looked Irish, and that's how she identified. Mom was staunchly antiracist. I don’t think she denied her Indian heritage out of bigotry, but rather out of fear that she would be exposed as a bastard, and reveal family secrets. 
           Mom told me that Grandma had mentioned the man was Cherokee, but I have no idea if Grandma really knew. The man had an Anglicized, common name. In Cherokee, N.C., I looked at the rolls for the Eastern Band, but couldn’t find his name.
            This is one of many things in my life that has made me wonder about ethnicity and identity. If this man had acknowledged Mom as his child, if Mom had had a birth certificate listing him as her father, if he had been enrolled as a tribal member, I might have been considered Native American.
            The day that I found out about my grandfather, did I become Indian? A quarter Indian? Because I wasn’t raised in any sort of indigenous culture, I’ve never identified as such. Sometimes, on a U.S. reservation or among indigenous people in Latin America, I’ve wanted to blurt out, “We are not so far apart. I’m not as white as you might think.” But, of course, we are far apart. I have all the privileges of whiteness. I gain only an advantage from having Indian heritage among liberal friends who consider whiteness an original sin. The oppression, in regard to being Indian, was experienced by my biological grandfather and those who came before and after him who were seen as Indian.
        Maybe he was a great guy who really cared about my grandmother but abandoned her and their child only because he had suffered much hardship and wanted to spare them. Maybe if he hadn’t been so poor, he would have claimed my mother as his child. Oppression doesn’t necessarily ennoble people, though. Maybe he was a jerk who preyed on my grandmother because she was innocent, and then abandoned Mom as a nuisance. I’ll never know.
            My Irish-American grandmother, who put down every ethnic group except Irish, had a large portrait of me. In a loving tone, she would remark how Irish I looked. Seeing the Irish in me – and not seeing anything else – helped her love me.
           No one else looks at me and thinks I'm Irish. Perhaps that's why I don't identify strongly as Irish. Instead, I’m much more likely to identify as Jewish. (Yes, yes, I know there are Irish Jews, and I know Judaism is a religion, but for many Jews, it also is a cultural and ethnic identity.) My father was a Russian Jewish atheist, in the great tradition. My mother didn’t convert – to either Judaism or atheism. Because Judaism is matrilineal, most Jews would not consider me Jewish. Nevertheless, I have a Jewish last name, and my dark hair and eyes, high cheekbones and long nose seem to fit a Jewish stereotype. Jews have embraced me, if not as one of their own, well, at least close enough in the South.
               My parents married during World War II, when Jews were not considered quite white. Some white kids taunted me for my looks when I was growing up, and later, some men found me “darkly” attractive or “exotic.” (This was Texas, OK?) I understand that I have white privilege, compared with people of color. Within the broad category of “white,” however, there are many advantages and disadvantages, just as is true for the broad category of “people of color.”
               Like a lot of people, I have lived my life as part this and that. Multiples make up my identity. Who I think I am, and how others perceive me, may change with time and place.

|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 


I took this photo of a baboon's backside at Legoland in Billund, Denmark.
|

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Musings on identity: Shaming mothers and children (by Suzie) 



        I don’t remember how old I was when I learned my mother’s terrible secret. She had been “illegitimate.” She told only a handful of people in her lifetime. Even now, with my parents and grandparents dead, I feel uncomfortable writing about this.
       Her mother had been infatuated with on older man in the neighborhood. She knew nothing about sex, but one time, when the two were alone, he had sex with her. She became pregnant, but he refused to acknowledge that he was the father of her child.
       The family tried to keep the pregnancy and birth a secret. Mom developed rickets because she was kept in the house for her first couple of years. The family moved, and Mom was passed off as an orphan of World War I. My grandmother married the man I consider my grandfather, and they moved again, passing off Mom as their child.
        A number of feminist issues that persist today resonate with me because of my family history. I’m irate that some conservatives want to use shame to try to keep unwed girls and women from becoming pregnant.
        This is a case of conservatives forcing their values on others. It reinforces the idea that females must be sexual gatekeepers because they bear the brunt of the shame. People may never know that a man is an “unwed father.” Shaming contributes to the instability of families, and it can result in mental and physical harms to the children. Shaming has economic consequences. 
        Thinking of my grandmother, I wish all children could get comprehensive sex education. My grandmother could be a terror, but her unhappiness may have stemmed from feeling trapped and abused. That’s another story, but suffice it so say that she knew my grandfather could destroy her life and Mom’s if he had told the truth.
        I long for a world in which women have more freedom in entering and exiting relationships, and no child is born into shame.

|

The Beginning by Anthony McCarthy 

The last week, and my two years of blogging have had several themes, none of those more important than the fact that we live now, we act now, in the conditions we face now, like it or not. Reality is the bottom line, it has the potential to eat away at our most brilliant planning and thinking even as we try for perfection in those. While we fiddle, negotiate and sooth injured pride, our enemies are at work anticipating us and actively undermining us. As I have pleaded with you to understand, they are dishonest and cruel, they are crafty and deceptive, they aren’t stupid. Like all successful con men, they will deceive those they are robbing and destroying quite successfully. They are far from stupid.

The present contains whatever tools and opportunities we really have to work with, nothing which isn’t contained in our present is going to be available to us. Time taken up with the attempts to make basic tools from scratch is often time wasted, the left has wasted decade upon decade in just the planning for future tool making. What looks good on paper, is often worse than a flop. In the present conditions, here, now in 2008, we don’t have time to give to that speculation, we have got to use what we have at hand. If the tool isn’t available in time, it might as well have not worked.

We don’t have time to waste on the time wasters among us, we don’t have time to wait for their impractical theories to fall of their own, obvious weight. There are those among the worst of them who can prop up that lead balloon with the fine looking logo they are urging us to ride in, to sucker in generations that go nowhere. Some of them are half right, those can be some of the worst, Ralph Nader is the quintessential example.

Some of them are all wrong, those with a patina of what’s taken for liberalism or leftism while they offer only the promise of producing a small core of loud fanatics convinced of their superior intellects even as repeated failure demonstrates that their mastery of buzz words or even entire programs of intellectual theory is no substitute for practicality and good will.

Snobs, a dangerously proliferating invasive species on leftist blog threads, not only advertise themselves as those who will waste time and consume your energies with the damage they will do to the left, they advertise themselves as mock leftists, leftists who don’t possess the first requirements for being a leftist. Anyone who thinks the lowest among us are not worthy of our full respect, consideration and effort, is a conservative who hasn’t fully developed yet.

Sexism and racism and other forms of stereotyping and stigmatization as political strategy and posture should be stamped on vigorously, first and foremost because they are evil and unjust, secondly because those practicing them offend us, divide us, take up our time and do the work of our enemies for them.

I fully believe that the core belief of the left, that people are endowed with inherent rights equally held by every last person. People own their bodies, they have a right to an environment that will sustain them, they have the right to food, water, clothing, shelter, rest, sleep, respect, love and mutual support. People do not exist apart from each other, people have the right to have their rights observed, they have an absolute obligation to observe the rights of other people. I fully believe that governments are established to procure those rights and to protect them, equally, for every person. Education, one of the most basic means of obtaining, protecting and providing those things needed by people, it is a fundamental right. I believe that the core values of the left are correct and should govern our work in making progress.

I fully believe that people do actually have a spark of the divine in them and it is by that which their inherent rights exist. I believe that our bodies are provided to us as individuals for our use, though I’m not going to go into that here and now. I believe that we the living are different from the inert, that humans with the ability to think and learn and sympathize with other suffering life, are not the slaves of physical law in our actions. I believe The People, individually and collectively can take effective beneficial action that supersedes any possible theoretical impediment that the individual and collective genius of self-interested or merely deluded people can devise. Even those with a mighty good line and some involved equations attached. I'd better not go into the folly of trying to study vastly complex systems with science and that history is generally a better tool for understanding some of those, you know where that could lead.

In a practical demonstration of the fact that we are all subject to real life and time and that we had better not waste time on the impractical and theoretical, I am forced to inform you of the end of my regular blogging. I will post my last regular piece on Sunday, I don’t know if I will post any pieces or comments after that. Thought I’ve got too big a mouth to promise that I will remain silent forever. If I do have anything to say, Echidne’s blog is the first place I’ll come to say it, her admirable blog community those who I’ll think should hear it first. I’ll have more to say on this Sunday.
|

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

"A deeper black" (by Suzie) 



          I like identity politics when it brings about changes or benefits candidates I support. But it drives me crazy when it results in discussions over who is more authentic.
          In an article for The Nation, Ta-Nehisi Coates describes “blackness as a big tent” that can cover many ways of being in this world. But some ways of being clearly delight him, as he describes Obama’s haircut, his TV habits and his handshake.
          He calls Obama “the blackest man to take the public stage ever.” Obama doesn’t need to talk about racism, just as most African Americans think little of racism or white privilege, Coates says. “This is the blackness of Barack Obama. It is an identity that asserts itself without conscious thought.”
          But this goes against what Obama has written in his memoir, in which he examines his roots and searches for his place among other African Americans. We build our identities over time, and this may be especially true of someone like Obama because of his biracial, multicultural background.
         Coates asserts that it’s “a deeper black” to be confident, to think of blackness as a “garland,” rather than an “albatross.” Although he credits a new generation, his ideas echo the racial pride of the black power movement.
         Coates’ assertion strikes me as a false dichotomy, however. A person can be proud of being black while still fighting racism.
         Just to be clear: I’m criticizing Coates, not Obama.
         In the same article, I think Coates also misreads Frederick Douglass. Coates says Douglass “throttled his slave breaker [and] fled to the North.” Frederick did grab one of his masters, but he would later escape from another. Anna Murray, an older and free black woman whom he later married, helped him escape. I think it's important that she not disappear from his history. I’ve read that she borrowed money to help him, but another account says:
“Anna sold many of her belongings to help Frederick purchase the train tickets for his escape. She also sewed the sailor uniform he wore as a disguise and accumulated the necessary items for starting a household.”
          Coates says, “Douglass was vilified in his time.” Of course, pro-slavery people hated him, but he also was a popular speaker whose autobiography became a bestseller. While he spent much of his time traveling, his wife ran the household and aided the Underground Railroad.
Those interested in this history should visit the Frederick Douglass National Historic Site in D.C. Its Web site also has much historical information.

|

What’s not rape (by Suzie) 



      I’m excited to have my posts included in the latest Carnival of Radical Feminists, but it has gotten me thinking: What might the games and rides be like?
      The carnival has some interesting posts. Be sure to check out La Doctorita’s commentary on magazine covers. She concludes:
… the next time somebody tries to tell you that men have to deal with just as many unhealthy stereotypes about their appearances as women do … just walk them over to the magazine aisle.
         Abyss2hope comments on an outstanding series on rape in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. She also wrote a series of posts discussing what constitutes rape. I read this yesterday, after a morning of imaging tests at the cancer center where I volunteer. I’ve gotten CT scans and/or MRIs at least every three months since I was diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma in 2002.
         For an MRI of the abdomen and pelvis, the techs put contraptions on my body and strap me down. Yesterday, one tech was going to strap my arms against my body, and I refused. The other tech got it immediately and said that was OK, and he could make my arms comfortable and free by my side.
         MRIs freak out a lot of people. But some health-care professionals also understand that procedures can be difficult for some people who have gone through traumatic experiences, such as rape. This silent understanding is a kindness because few people want to say, “Hey, I’m a rape survivor and this creeps me out.”
           I couldn’t find research on this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some rape survivors avoid medical care or skip some procedures because they are uncomfortable but don’t want to say anything.
           On the other hand, I’ve heard guys say, half-jokingly, that they felt violated or raped by procedures like catheterization. Listen up: If you’ve never been raped, please don’t use rape as an analogy for something unpleasant for which you gave your consent. Find some other way to complain.
          By the way, I listened to the latest CD by Little Pink during my MRI and I highly recommend it. Here's “Wind and Water.”

|

Today's Forcast 

Heavy allergies, light posting. Will be back when I wake up in a Benadryl stupor. Do watch the program about fistula, it was a real reality check in this surreal atmosphere caused by our continuing election standoff. If you can't, read the things at the website linked to below, they are sobering.

Anthony McCarthy
|

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

The Nova Program About The Fistula Hospital in Ethiopia 

posted by Anthony McCarthy

If you haven’t seen it yet and still can in your area, you should watch the Nova program “Walking to Beautiful” about Ethiopian women who suffer ostracism due to fistula and the Fistula Hospital in Addis Abba. It’s one of the best Nova programs in years, essential viewing, giving a hard to take look into the difficult lives of the women, what they have to go through to be treated and that there are a lot more women suffering with fistula than can be treated. Just saw it and thought you should know.

Here’s the program website.
|

A star athlete in the making (by Suzie) 



Echidne pointed out this news story. I think it's hard for her to take time off. Rest, goddess, rest.
AUSTIN, Texas -- Bonnie Richardson ran. She threw. She jumped.
And when it was time to hand out the team trophies, Richardson accepted the 1A team championship for Rochelle High School -- by herself.
          Richardson was the only Rochelle athlete to qualify for the state meet and stunningly won the team title. University Interscholastic League officials said it was the first time they can remember a single athlete winning a girls' team title. It's happened before on the boys' side, but not since ... the 1970s...
|

Another video on campaign sexism (by Suzie) 



      The video below is partisan, but I'm posting it because, believe it or not, there are still plenty of people who don't know the extent of the sexism in this presidential campaign.
       I think reasonable feminists can discuss 1) whether some statements or actions by Obama, cited in this video, were intended to be sexist and 2) whether a candidate should be held accountable for everything his supporters say. I also assume that McCain supporters are responsible for some of the blatant sexism against Clinton.
       But here's what I think is indisputable: Some Obama supporters have exhibited blatant sexism. Obama should come out and say that sexism is wrong. This could help heal divisions in the party.
       I know that Obama supporters believe that Clinton and her supporters have said things that feed racism. See my points 1) and 2) above. Whether Obama supporters believe her or not, Clinton has spoken against racism many times in her life. If Obama has addressed sexism at length or apologized for the sexism of some of his supporters, I would (sincerely) like the citations.



|

Nonprofit, online journalism (by Suzie) 

   

         I wonder where journalism is headed, with the rise of the Internet and the slide in profits for print. That’s why I’m intrigued by the St. Louis Beacon, a nonprofit, online news site edited by a longtime journalist, Margaret Wolf Freivogel, whom I know from the Journalism and Women Symposium.
         I understand that nonprofits can’t ignore monetary issues if they hope to survive, and nonprofit status is not the panacea for all that ails journalism. Still, it does offer one alternative.

|
Well, mark me down for the geezer I am, but I’d not known about Somi before looking for a You Tube of Abby Lincoln singing “African Lady” to the jazz genius of Eric Dolphy. I didn’t find that great recording from 1961 but I found this song of the same name by Somi with Herve Samb on Guitar performed last year.

Somi: African Lady

I think you might like it. Here’s her website.

posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

Life Is Real Words Can Be Cheap by Anthony McCarthy 

but they can get people killed.

Suzie’s post yesterday is about one of those first level issues that are much more important than the election campaign squabbling I’ve been dealing with. If you haven’t read it yet and donated, it’s very important and is a chance to do something real about the world.

The point about what we can do for people in another country where our best intentions are thwarted by politics and the history of the West in the Middle East came up at Digby’s blog. The issue is one we’ve discussed here a lot, the murder of a young woman that goes by the obscene non sequitur, “honor killing” Here’s one of my comments lightly edited.

---------

You might be too young to remember the dispute of PBS showing the film "Death of a Princess" about the beheading of a young woman living somewhere among the royalty of the House of Saud and her lover. There were all kinds of threats about retaliation from Saudi Arabia, mostly taken by people at the time to mean another 1970s style oil crisis. I remember all the talk about "understanding their culture" by those who advocated PBS be stopped from showing it. Well, I heard Elizabeth Drew say that she thought the Saudis should be told that in our culture you don't censor the news media, that’s our culture. I thought it was one of the more intelligent points made in the arguments about the issue. The Saudi aristocracy, much more of an enemy of the people who they rule over than they are to us, had a potent tool to use, an implied oil embargo. We don't even have that to enforce our ideas in a case like this.

The murder of women like this is a crime against humanity, it's terrible and it's disgusting and outrageous. What do you propose we do about it? I mean what do you propose that will actually do, to do something for these women, not what will allow us to pretend that our outraged words, full of moral indignation and reason, will have any effect at all. And those reasonable and justified words don't stand alone, they are sent out in a sea of racism, imperialism, counterproductive religious invective, etc. When they get over there the most enlightened Western words are tainted with the Sam Harris and the neo-con kind of crap.

Has anyone here asked some Islamic feminists what they think? Some actually living in the middle east instead of some white man in a college town in the United States? I'm sure you'll get different and conflicting opinions from them, some probably in line with what I'd disagree with. But I am a white man in the United States, I don't have to live with the consequences that could flow from whatever other people here do. Women in the middle east, who have the advantage of knowing the first thing about their own situations, have more information that any one else does. They're the go to people on this issue.

I don't see what people who witnessed the reaction to those stupid anti-Islamic cartoons don't get. They don't care what we think, though they obviously can care about what we say. Our ability to influence their societies for the good is a lot weaker than our ability to piss them off stupendously and a lot of people get killed when that happens. Islam-baiting is certainly a way to get that accomplished. I can speculate what the assholes here who indulge themselves that way get out of it, they're the only ones who do get something out of it. But I don't know why any decent adult would want to get that out of a situation that gets people killed. I don't count them as among the enlightened.
|

Monday, May 12, 2008

Day Old Question by Anthony McCarthy 

On first bite -

*Oh, it’s a store-bought cake.*

Then -

What do they put in store-bought cake that makes it taste like Play-Doh smells?
|

Don’t forget the women of Burma (Myanmar) by Suzie 



      When a disaster occurs, don’t forget the gendered aspects. During the chaos, women can be more vulnerable to rape and violence by intimate partners. They may trade their bodies for aid. Because women often care for the young, the old and the sick, they may have greater needs or different needs than men. In many cultures, women have to protect their honor or dignity in different ways that may hinder their ability to get help.
         With extensive community ties, women also can have an advantage in distributing aid after a disaster.
         I haven’t seen an article on women in Burma after the recent cyclone, but here’s one on what happened in Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand and the Maldives after the tsunami hit in 2005.  This source and this one provide general information on women in Burma.
        The international women’s rights organization MADRE is one avenue for donations. Its Web site says: “MADRE is working with the Women's Human Rights Defenders Network and Burmese women's organizations.”

|

It’s Next Year That Could Get Us Killed If We’re Not Smart About It. by Anthony McCarthy 

I don’t have a transcript but remember what was said on the program. It was one of those moments when someone say something that crystalizes an idea that had been only vaguely thought before. In a discussion of five members of the Boston media on Emily Rooney’s program on WGBH TV the subject was the handful of reporters and journalists who don’t vote out of principle. The idea being that reporters are supposed to be objective and unbiased so they shouldn’t vote. Callie Crossley, the accomplished and erudite journalist, producer, you name it in media, she’s done it... said that with the people who had sacrificed their lives to allow her, a black woman, to vote, there was no way she was going to give up her vote. Which was the most sensible thing I’ve ever heard a journalist say on that subject.

Voting, participating fully in politics, is the birth right of every single person. It is a right as much as any other, including the right to own your body, politics is what produces the limits under which we will be allowed to exercise our inherent rights. Anyone impeding someone from voting is assaulting all of their rights from the most vital to the least, they are telling, asking or encouraging people to give up their rights. That is just as immoral now as it was during Jim Crow when black people were passively discouraged as well as violently prevented from voting at all, never mind exercising the luxury we, we with the leisure to read blogs are being encouraged to give up, voting in their best interests. Women should certainly understand this issue, since their participation has been discouraged on the basis of their gender as well.

I’d go farther than that for the purpose of blogging. Those on the blog threads who are discouraging people from vigorously opposing and voting against the Republicans, in the only way that will affect reality in January, are acting as Republican agents provocateurs. I know that they will have some idealistic sounding reason for it, they will have some line, but reality is real*, that is the real life effect of what they are saying.

There is no rational reason for someone who doesn’t want the Bush-Cheney nightmare to continue under a new name to discourage people from voting for the Democratic nominee. There is either an irrational reason for them doing it or they are actually working to continue the policies of the Bush-Cheney nightmare. The six months before November will be too busy trying to prevent disaster to try to sort out the moles from the dupes. Until after the election, I’m considering them all Republican operatives, because they’ll be doing the same thing.

* Anticipating the usual eloquent appeals for “the future”, well, January 2009 is as much “the future” as their age of their glorious millennium. I am pretty sure January will come next year, I haven’t seen any evidence that their fantasy future will get here. And since time goes all in one direction and only on one road, the road to whatever future there is will have to go through next year. That’s the reality of it. People are going to have to eat next year, have health problems next year, need an environment that will grow them food and sustain their lives next year, keep from getting involved with McCain’s war on Iran next year. We need a good next year to have a future beyond it. Next year could get us all killed.
|

Naptime 



Sam is tired:





And so am I. Taking this week off from blogging. Suzie and Anthony McCarthy have generously promised to take care of the blog while I have a little nap. Or ten.

|

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Paul Hindemeth Sonata For Viola and Piano Op. 11 No. 4

Ori Kam, violist [Tatiana Goncherova pianist (?) ] .

For my mother, a violist, on mother’s day. posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

Career Tracking 13-year-olds by Anthony McCarthy 

I’m reading this article about career tracking young teenagers in the public schools for the third time this morning and can’t tell how I feel about it. My initial feeling is uneasy, it sounds too much like what they did in Britain to reinforce class rankings at the behest of social science charlatanism (See The Mismeasure of Man by S. J. Gould) . It also has more than a few points in common with the Booker T. Washington - W.E.B Du Bois dispute.

The push for a greater link between school and work is most apparent in low-income communities, where, advocates say, career themes engage kids who might otherwise drop out or lose interest in school.

That’s what you'd have suspected, a way to turn low-income children into a work force for the service and corporate oligarchs. The article begins with one 13-year-old giving up her acting when she was convinced to enter on a career path leading to her becoming a physician's assistant. Being a physician’s assistant is an entirely laudable goal and an admirable profession, certainly better than many better paid ones which are a blight on humanity. But why did she have to give up acting so early?

Other students in the article have other stories, some very positive, some I wonder about. And if it’s such a wonderful thing for lower income children, wouldn’t those in the upper class be pushing their way into it? I’m trying hard to remember a boon to anyone which wasn’t hogged by the upper class.

It will take a long time for me to figure out if I think it’s a good idea or not. Probably, like just about every practice in education it will be for some and not for others. I wonder why they couldn’t come up with a way to provide more of a liberal education within a vocational program. Having a child who can have a decent income is a laudable goal but a broad enough education for them to be a fulfilled person throughout their lives and fully participating members in a democratic society are as important. I'd like people to get back to realizing that they work to have a life of their own, that it isn't the other way around.

Get back to you on this.
|

Comment Posted As A Clarification by Anthony McCarthy 

If you don't get the most votes you will not have to worry about "selling out", you will be out.

I'm a gay, socialist, leveler who believes, roughly, in the Quaker idea that each person has a spark of the divine in them and that they have inherent, absolute rights which they must exercise in full recognition of the rights of every other person. I could go into my leftist credentials further but I think you would agree this puts me on the far left side of things.

Nancy Pelosi is, beyond any dispute, the person farthest on the left to have held leadership in the House, the Senate or the executive, there is no evidence that anyone farther to the left is going to achieve power during our life times. Some individual members of congress are to her left, though not that many, arguably one or two of the senators, other than dear Senator Sanders, might be to her left. When we are talking about national office, the universe of what constitutes "the left" is not the same as that when we are talking about those of us who have either been unable or unwilling to achieve election to a public office*. We, old chum, are not going to constitute the governing left any time in our life times. For us, assuming you're roughly in my age cohort, when we are talking about national office, considering our "left" is a waste of time.

I'd rather have a more progressive tax code and a reduced carbon load in the atmosphere in the foreseeable future than in arguing about what will not be.

And, I assure you, a politician who has to win an election will have to deal with the much larger constituencies who aren't as far left as we are, in any case.

I'm done with pretending that unachievable principles are worth sacrificing the possible. That "ideal" isn't an ideal, it's a feel-good pose. It will feed no children, provide no one with health care or preserve one hectare of land or ocean. All of which are more important than any abstract ideal I happen to hold.

* Volunteering in a political campaign, seeing what they go through, I’m sick and tired of hearing people run down our politicians. They are just about all dedicated to pubic service. Few moderate to liberal Democrats serving in elective office at the national level couldn’t be enjoying a much more comfortable and profitable life pursuing a wealth-making career. With considerably fewer headaches. You think it’s such a bed of roses, try getting yourself elected. Try dodging the bullets and balancing the pressure groups. Anyone who wonders why they ignore people acting like crybabies should stop wondering. Acting like a crybaby is you inviting them to ignore you. They have to.
|

I’m Burned Out Just Listening To A Little Of What Teachers Are Up Against by Anthony McCarthy 

Asking two highschool teachers I know about one of those tertiary level issues I mentioned yesterday, I got a crash course in their reality. Most of the basic assumptions I brought to my questioning were wildly optimistic. Instead of the 185 days I assumed as their opportunity for teaching their subject it was actually 180 days. Instead of the three days I’d imagined given to standardized testing, it was actually a week, sometimes more. And, as one of them reminded me, a class period devoted to giving a unit test is also a “day” when they aren’t teaching new information. He said that he never gets to the end of the textbook he’s got, never mind adding new topics to be brought up. That’s why he couldn’t tell me how many actual teaching days to subtract for unit tests.

And, as both reminded me, their “day” is actually not a day but an “hour”. And that “hour” was 50 minutes long, at least a tenth of that just spent on getting kids settled and taking care of administrative junk. Then there are the non-teaching problems they’ve got while actually teaching their subject matter, ranging from confused or listless kids to even the best behaved kids cutting up, to kids with a history of psychopathic violence. I asked how they dealt with kids who didn’t have the background knowledge for their subject, they said it was a huge problem.

So, when you subtract the 15 minutes from those 180 hours and start subtracting “hours” given over to, not teaching but testing, and figuring in the time spent with remedial and behavior problems, it looks like a mighty hard job.

When you ask one, don’t even bring up what they think when university based geniuses start telling them what they need to add to their curriculum. Not unless you really want an earful.
|

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Bessie Smith 

Backwater Blues

With photos and art from New Orleans, it's good to remember.


posted by Anthony McCarthy
|

Who Pays As They Wait For Our Ideals? by Anthony McCarthy 

There is nothing idealistic about insisting on ideals that have no chance of becoming reality right now and refusing to compromise. There is no good in ignoring death, disease, hunger, ignorance and pollution while holding out for something purer in some glorious, remote future. The theoretical ideal might never be achieved and even if it could be, the lives of those who could be saved are here now. They need saving today. To insist on your ideals or principles instead of a compromise that is better than the status quo is to wager on their lives. Their lives aren't ours to bet with.

If you want to put it in stark terms, how many days are you willing to go without food for your political ideals? Are you willing to die when the odds might indicate that your ideals stand little chance of being achieved? If you imagine that you are willing to die then how many of your children are you willing to sacrifice on the same long odds? For a person facing starvation it isn't just a matter of their own life. Children are even more vulnerable than adults in most cases. If the answer is that you aren't willing to see yours die but you are prepared to take a chance on other peoples' children then you have to believe that yours are more worthy of life than people who you are betting on now. For us it's a matter of imagination. They are looking at the skulls of their children showing through their skin.

How about if it’s a question of my ideals? Should your children have to sacrifice while we wait for my ideals to be fulfilled? Would you respect me for insisting on my ideals being more important than your children’s lives? I hope not because if I insisted on that I’d be scum and I’d want someone to tell me so. Why should your ideals be more worthy of the sacrifice than those of any one else? What makes yours so special? Why should anyone respect your idealistic intransigence?

The all or nothing fixation, the worst kind of this idealism, is a form of self-satisfied preening. It has been with us for as long as one leftist could attain personal status by being the most leftist in the room. It has helped lead us into the disaster we find ourselves in today. And it has produced nothing. Nothing. Rigid, uncompromising and insistent idealism is sterile and useless in the real world. It would be better to call it what it really is, vanity.

The period of most rapid progress in the sixties was full of compromises, some clean, a lot of it pretty grimy but progress was made. The progress seems to have moved some on the left into the kind of competitive arrogance that leads to folly. The folly in this case was pretending that our individual interest groups were in a stronger position than they were. Saying so didn't make it true. We started demanding the premature delivery of the presently unobtainable and our politicians couldn't deliver. We started attacking them for not being able to do the impossible. And doing that is just plain nuts. Working coalitions with the center and among competing parts of the left fell apart. In reality was we were only as strong as the coalition based on compromises of ideals.

We all know that the other path of folly was the Vietnam war. As Martin Luther King pointed out, with spending for the war Democrats stopped being able to deliver incremental progress both for the poor and for the middle class. It might not be an accident that was when the Party began to lose support in the general population. The result was Richard Nixon and the rise of the far right. He had to deal with the old coalition and since he was most interested in playing his demented version of the great game he let it have some of the last of the great reforms it has put into law. But he also began the Supreme Court appointments that would doom many of those.

Amidst it all the rigid idealists presented the Republicans with a very useful tool. Republicans and their media, fixing on the most extreme of the radical idealists, made the rest of us into a cartoon. And the show liberals were gratified and encouraged. Even Phil Donahue who was supposed to be a liberal turned the word into a synonym for "flake". Conservatives have used this cartoon to deflect attention while they were ending the middle class, stealing everything they could for their wealthy patrons. Tricked by the media, the general population has adopted the lie to their own disadvantage, as has been pointed out many times before.

I will confess that I was taken in by idealist fundamentalism for a lot of that time. We were standing for the soundest of principles. To compromise our ideals was to betray them. Eventually, somehow, even as we faced repeated defeat, it would make us stronger to remain intransigent. Some of those hucksters have a mighty good act.

I’m not reciting the tales of the 60s for any other purpose than in the hopes that the people who will be trying to further the agenda of the left now will look on the mistakes and foolishness of my generation and not repeat them. I think that if they see them for what they were, they can avoid the stupid things we did back then. I fully believe they can do better than we did.

In the end it's producing results that is really idealistic. The impatient left has been waiting for that glorious, instantaneous millennium to dawn for way too many lifetimes. The bodies of those who could have been helped by moderate assistance during that period is a pile too big to tell. Don't bother waiting any longer, it's never going to get here that way. We've never been farther from it in our lifetimes. The futile insistence on having it all now is a block to reaching those ideals. If some progress is made, incrementally edging closer to the final goal, the ideal stands a chance. If people who aren't on the left start seeing modest success instead of our present complete failure they might just think we're on to something, especially if some of that success improves their lives. We might start building a larger coalition instead of seeing it shrinking all the time. The perfect really is the enemy of the good and it's also its own worst enemy.
|

How To Climb Out Of The Single-Issue Rathole by Anthony McCarthy 

The first step is to admit that you’re in a rathole.

It is generally understood that a politician needs to sell themselves to the voters in order to win an election and, so, be a real instead of a failed politician. And they do sell themselves, they have no choice. Political offices being a rare item, they need to sell themselves high. In our national politics, to 50% of the voters + 1, at the cheapest. Any lower, they find another job*. It’s a pretty sordid way of putting it, but we are talking about one of the more sordid aspects of real politics, who actually wins and who doesn’t. Keep in mind this isn’t a simple transaction. The number of votes you offer has to not be more than a politician will lose from another bidder if they take your offer.

In a piece posted two years ago, I tried to illustrate in schematic terms what a politician has to do to figure out what group of voters is going to be a good risk and which ones are a total loss. I hope that it is noticed that in the end I go into what a very small interest group has to do to increase their strength in order to promote their issue. That might be the most important part of the post.

Another way to look at this is that a small group of voters has to sell their cause to the politician they want to support them. If they refuse to do that out of some airy-fairy notion of principle, there are other groups, some larger, that won’t have that scruple. The left, not generally having the funds necessary to practice money politics, our currency for this transaction is the number of votes you can offer the politician.

You might grouse and snivel about how unprincipled that competing group is and what a cur of a sell-out the politician is but, I assure you, that will make absolutely no difference to either one of them if they win an election. In politics, winning is the key to everything, being in on a compromise is the main door that it opens. You refuse to do what is necessary to get the key, you are shut out. You refuse to get to the table where compromise is made, you lose it all.

* Percentages vary in those rare cases when there are more than two viable candidates or when a spoiler throws it to the weaker of the two real candidates.
|

Speeding Past The Hazard Sign by Anthony McCarthy 

The state of affairs on the leftist blogs have led to my having a crisis of faith in their usefulness for the left. The level of sexist and racist language in the struggle for the Democratic nomination, the numbers of people declaring that they will never vote for the other candidate if they are the nominee, these are things I will not participate in perpetuating. The blogs, in general, and many in particular are turning into a problem, some have gone past that point to damaging our chances in November. I think that a lot of the offensive, divisive stuff is actually done by Republican plants, but a lot of it isn’t. Not enough is being done to counter it. Some of the largest and most influential blogs of the left are some of the worst offenders, even some of the most reasonable are a problem.

My entire reason to be involved in blogging is to help the left to regain political power in order to further our agenda in reality, not just in talk. After a half a century of hearing the fine talk and seeing too little of the reality, the talk isn’t enough. Without the reality, it's worse than a self-deluding fraud.

In the United States the left having power means having Democrats in control of the White House and the Capitol. That is my bottom line. I will not participate in any activity that impedes or endangers that goal. There is not a Democrat who will be running for the presidency or for the leadership of the House and Senate who is not preferable to the Republican alternative. There is no Republican in any race who will enhance the chances of those Democrats to occupy those positions.

I will not be a part of tearing apart the Democratic coalition, I won’t stand by as its chances of winning are diminished through infighting or the pursuit of issues of lesser importance and those of utter futility.

If both of those running for the presidential nomination do not come together and heal the rift caused by them, their campaigns and their supporters and we lose the election because of it, I will actively and vigorously oppose any future campaign for the nomination they might run. I encourage anyone who reads this to also make themselves heard to this effect. Anyone who can be named, who participated in causing a rift that loses us an election of this importance can also depend on my fierce opposition in the future.

This isn’t a game, a chance to strike a pose or a career opportunity for political operatives, it is a matter of life and death. That isn’t a figure of speech. It really matters who wins the election in November and who takes office in January, it matters more than any issue or whim of lesser effect. This issue marks a parting of the ways for some, an occasion to regroup and continue for the rest of us.
|

Friday, May 09, 2008

Over And Done by Anthony McCarthy 

The country, the world needs the Democrats to win the election in November.

I’ve been concentrating too much for too long on what we shouldn’t be doing, getting dragged into tertiary level and lower fights that some influential but marginal elites will try to drag us into. Those fights have lost us elections, they will continue to lose elections. I won’t name those again, you can read my past posts and comments to see those identified.

The left has to go back to its economic justice roots and concentrate on issues important to a majority of voters. A lot of those are not exotic and cutting edge and, since the above mentioned elites aren’t the most disadvantaged by economic injustice, those issues aren’t considered sexy by the loudest of those posing as the voice of the left. They are too every-day to be diverting and so will not make diverting reading. A living wage, national health care, decent jobs and a secure life for children and adults, a just tax system, a habitable environment, if the majority of voters believe we will try hard to deliver those things, we will win this and every other election. We must make it clear that we will try to deliver those to all Americans, regardless of ethnic group, gender, or other minority assignment. All or none, you can’t have economic justice without justice.

And people know they will never get justice without having respect. Too many Americans have been convinced that Democrats look down on them. If you want to know what’s wrong with people who vote against their interests, the feeling they are disrespected is a big part of it. People will forgo a lot before they’ll give up their sense of being respectable, of deserving respect. Even people who are starving and might give up their self-respect will hate you for taking it from them. They will get it back as soon as they can afford it, but they’ll never forgive those who took it from them to start with. If fascist demagogues hold a promise of it in front of them, they’ll follow them into ruin chasing after it. And a lot of the people who pretend they’re on the left give them good reason to doubt our respect.

Quite plainly, there are way too many people on the left who have contempt for The People in whole or in large part. I don’t trust anyone like that. They will be the first to turn, the least reliable when it comes right down to it. The left either believes in the dignity of The People, their ability to rise, their right to govern themselves, or it ceases to exist, changing into some sterile species of libertarianism at best, a permanently self-exiled pantomime of a left, the status quo left of the past thirty years.

Our candidates have to run against the lying cartoon of elitism the Republicans have drawn, they also have to run against those allegedly of the left who support that cartoon image with their words and actions.

People like to have a real reason to like themselves. They need it as much as they need food and a clean place to sleep. They need to know they are respected and loved. Americans, at their best, really do believe in justice and equality and fairness. If those virtues seem quaint it’s not from their being too commonplace today. They have been made to seem phony by jaded scribblers, bored academics, lazy TV writers, and hate talk cynics. I have enough faith in people to believe that the majority will opt for decency over decadence. If I didn’t believe that I’d put a gun in my mouth now and get out of a rotten life. I don’t believe life is inevitably rotten.

I’m done with the play left, the pose left, the left that puts theories over realities and ideological postures over vital practicalities. I’m done with the left that looks down on The People, who see them as having no more potential than manageable masses kept contented with distractions while ruled over by themselves as fantasy philosopher kings. That left isn’t any left, it’s a bunch of brats in a clique daydreaming something that will never be. I’m done reasoning with them, I’m done cajoling them, I’m done humoring them, I’m just done with them.

There’s an election to win, power to be taken and laws to be made. We’ve got a lot of people to convince. We have to get most of them.
|

Poor judgment = don't get videotaped (by Suzie) 


ST. PETERSBURG - Students this morning reacted in disbelief and horror at the news three Dixie Hollins High School football players were arrested Thursday in connection with the molestation of a 15-year-old girl on a school bus. They also thought the suspects used poor judgment because a school bus videotape was running at the time of the sexual assault.
Let me make sure I understand: Young men would show better judgment if they assaulted a girl in a secluded place? 

ETA: The story has been edited to take out the sentence about "poor judgment." Yay, editors.
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 



Getting a Chihuahua has made me think of feminist philosophy. OK, everything makes me think of feminist philosophy. But Ginger makes me think of what it means to be strong, and how we share power.

Some would call Ginger my companion animal. I wouldn’t. (I planned to quote a sociology text on “pet or slave,” but when I searched the Internet for the citation, holy FSM, all I found were BDSM sites.) Anyway, we are companions, but I clearly have dominion over her. (Well, most of the time. Damn, did she just poop on the carpet?)

If she had her way, I would share all my meals with her. I would never leave her alone. I would never clean her ears. I would never take her to the vet. She would never perch on the back of my chair, as she is in this photo.

I’ve had her for seven weeks, and she rarely cowers like she did at first. She’d shiver, tuck her tail between her legs, pull back her ears and look at me as if to say, “I have no idea what I’ve done, but please, oh, great hulking creature, do not kill me.”

I wished she were more independent and self-respecting, like my sister’s St. Bernard, Chloe, shown here on a bed. Although Chloe defers to my sister, she considers herself next in the pack. To remind me of my place, she occasionally knocked me down and humped me when we all lived together. 

But Chloe has 120 pounds on Ginger. As a small creature, Ginger has learned other ways to survive. She reminds me that strength takes many forms.

|

Dividing feminists (by Suzie) 



       In the We Hate Hillary issue of The Nation, executive editor Betsy Reed blames Clinton for dividing feminists. The article has gotten acclaim in the liberal blogosphere.
       I have a few problems with the article, beginning with the idea of division. No. 1, division doesn’t seem to be Reed’s real point. She wouldn’t want feminists to unite behind Clinton; she wants them to support Obama. Wanting everyone to support your candidate is not the same as disliking discord.
       Using her logic, couldn’t someone say Obama divided feminists because he appeals to some and not others?
       No. 2, you can’t have a rift unless you had unity before. Anyone who thinks the feminist movement ever marched in lock step needs to read some history.
        Inadvertently, Reed illustrates this point by naming the different kinds of bad feminists who support Clinton (mainstream, corporate, institutional, second wave) vs. the good feminists who support Obama (antiwar, antiracist and young). The latter are more sophisticated, she says, because they are not “confined” to feminism. (Take away message: If you work full-time on feminist issues, bad. If you work for an organization that focuses on feminism, bad.) 
        Who supports whom is not as simple as she suggests. The petition “Feminists for Clinton” includes women who have written on race and war.
        Reed runs a magazine in which male writers dominate. Socialism and feminism have had a rocky relationship from the get-go, and in the United States, the sexism of the Left sparked much of second-wave feminism.
        Her article begins by describing the “torrent of misogyny” in the campaign, but she says Clinton is the wrong woman to rally around. This reminds me of arguments over rape and abortion. Feminists cannot always find a violated virgin to support. Sometimes they build their case around the person they have.
         Reed doesn’t blame Obama or his supporters for any of the campaign’s sexism. No, it’s the woman’s fault. Reed says the “militaristic” “hawk” Clinton has injected sexism into the campaign by acting more “macho” than the “feline Obama.” Although she knows their votes and policies are close, she suggests what really matters is their attitudes. Let me get this straight: If Bush had carried out the same war, but he had acted more catlike, whatever that means, and less bellicose, that would have been OK? As a supervisor, I was taught to judge people on performance, not attitude, and I still think that’s a good rule to follow.
          Reed talks about white women voting for Clinton, but doesn’t mention Latinas or any other women of color who support Clinton. Once again, a world of color has been rendered black and white.
           Prominent supporters of Clinton believe that gender is more oppressive than race, Reed claims. (Perhaps some do, but many have denied that, including Gloria Steinem, whom she names.) She makes the point, as have many others, that people should not say one form of oppression is worse than another. But I don’t see the people who say this trashing those who think racism is worse than sexism. Shouldn’t it work both ways?
          Clinton supporters don’t just give gender a higher priority, Reed says. Their campaign has been racist, “enabled” by the media. Reed rehashes racist and sexist charges discussed at length by others. For a different point of view, see Clinton supporter Anglachel in her recent posts “The Whiteness of the Whale” and “Millstone.” I hope people will read different opinions and make up their own minds.
           If Reed is wrong, then she and other Obama supporters are the ones creating harmful divisions in feminism and the Democratic Party. For the sake of argument, however, let’s say she’s right. If one oppression is no worse than another, why would racist attacks on Obama be worse than sexist attacks on Clinton? One answer is that racism is trickier, according to Reed.
Clinton has, to be sure, faced a raw misogyny that has been more out in the open than the racial attacks on Obama have been. But while sexism may be more casually accepted, racism, which is often coded, is more insidious and trickier to confront.
          Is it not possible that coded, insidious, tricky sexism exists, too? Why should we assume all sexism is out in the open?
          Reed quotes sociology professor Patricia Hill Collins, keynote speaker next month at the annual conference of the National Women’s Studies Association, on the risk of alienating young black women from feminism. Since feminists are split in this campaign, why should black women who dislike Clinton be alienated from the movement as a whole? Why shouldn’t they want to build coalitions with women like Collins and Reed? I wish all young women, no matter their ethnicity, would learn that no one has a lock on feminism. It is not a monolith. Different women have different ideas.
          Reed also quotes law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw:
"There is a myopic focus on the aspiration of having a woman in the White House--perhaps not any woman, but it seems to be pretty much enough that she be a Democratic woman." This stance, says Crenshaw, "is really a betrayal."
          Is supporting any woman a betrayal of black women who might feel better represented by a black man? Would it be a betrayal for black men to want any black Democrat in the White House, without concern for gender?
           Black women have long critiqued feminism. In a 1995 article, later collected in a book, English professor Susan Stanford Friedman described the cycle of women of color accusing white women of racism, followed by white women apologizing. She doesn’t want to end these discussions, but would like feminists to find common ground on which they can unite for political action.
            Similarly, I hope critiques of racism and sexism continue, but I wish people could avoid idolizing some and demonizing others. We all have some complicity in a sexist, racist society. Even politicians.

|

Thursday, May 08, 2008

My Shallow Thought For The Day 



After watching the meltdown of so many liberal/progressive blogs over the Obama-Clinton fracas, I realized that on some blogs the preferred order of candidate goes like this:


1. Barack Obama
2. John McCain
3. Hitlery

And on others it goes like this:


1. Hillary Clinton
2. John McCain
3. Obambi

Add to that the sexism and racism which is flying like shit thrown by brawling chimpanzees, the inflation and shrinking and misinterpretation of evidence and the deep, rough and unthinking hatred of the Other (which now consists of other Democratic voters), and you might well think that the Republicans are ordering in more popcorn to watch it all with great enjoyment.

Of course I hope that this, too, will pass sooner rather than later.

|

Who's Your Spiritual Councelor, John? 



While the media has gone on and on and on about Reverend Wright and his pronouncements, both on and off the pulpit, it has stayed fairly quiet about the role of religion in the life of John McCain. We are not told who counsels him in matters religious and ethical, are we?

That may be because nobody does. But such a scenario will not wash with the fundamentalist base of the Republican Party. I'm eagerly looking forward to finding the name of McCain's minister and confidante.

Meanwhile, we should probably look at the religious silverbacks who have given their support to McCain. Take, for instance, Rod Parsley, that firebrand fundamentalist from the great state of Ohio. Parsley is a fun kind of guy:





He also has access to his very own statistics on the life expectancies of gay and lesbian Americans:

Rod Parsley: The only way Christians can authentically and authoritatively approach the issue of homosexuality is from a heart of compassion. Love, not animosity, must be our motivation. It grieves me, for example, that the median age of homosexual men at death is 42 and for the population at large, the median age at death is 75. For lesbians, the median age at death is 45; for heterosexual women, 79. How can we not have compassion and love for people who are dying decades before they should?

So half of all lesbians are dead by the age of 45? Were they all killed by the Islamofascists?

Then there are Parsley's fascinating views on how God gives money to those who believe strongly enough, people like himself:

Exactly how Parsley purports to help the poor, both black and white, is evident in his practice of Word of Faith theology, also known as the prosperity gospel. Word of Faith is a nondenominational religious movement with no official church hierarchy or ordination procedures, which emphasizes the absolute prophetic authority of pastors, the imperative to make tithes and offerings to the church, and the power of an individual's spoken word to lay claim to their spiritual and material desires. Purveyors of Word of Faith, like Parsley, teach their flock to sow a seed by donating money to the church, promising a hundredfold return. Word of Faith has been popularized, in large part, by the immense growth of TBN -- a nonprofit entity with a 24-7 lineup of regular evangelists and faith healers, including Parsley, assets of more than $600 million, and annual revenues approaching $200 million, making it the closest competitor to Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network.

The most prominent critics of Word of Faith are Christians who consider it a heretical distortion of the Bible. According to these critics, Word of Faith preachers prey on people of modest means, promising prosperity in return for putting money in the pocket of a self-anointed prophet. Ole Anthony, president of the Dallas-based Trinity Foundation and a leading Word of Faith critic, regards the emphasis on financial abundance as evidence of God's blessing as the oldest heresy in the church. He describes Parsley as a power-hungry man, living an extravagant lifestyle that has become the hallmark of televangelists these days. With his wife and children, Parsley resides in a 7,500-square-foot house valued at more than $1 million.

Read the whole article from which this last quote was taken. It's well worth the effort.

Rod Parsley, McCain's spiritual counselor?

|

Dr. Phyllis Schlafly 



Washington University is giving Phyllis Schlafly an honorary doctorate for her work in all matters ultra-conservative. She is naturally best known as the woman who doesn't want any other woman to have what she has had (both children and a career and lots of public attention and influence). This is quite sad, because she has bona fide qualifications as an overall stark-crazy wingnut (she opposes evolution, she used to have nightmares about communists non-stop, she wants to kill Muslims). Yet her fame lies in her leadership of the movement which stopped the Equal Rights Amendment.

That's how the Girls' Auxiliary to the Right Wing works. The gals are to bash other gals and to leave the serious political matters to the guys. Sigh.

One reason why I'm hesitant to write about our Phyllis is exactly that suspicion: That the liberals/progressives are falling back on that same gendered division of labor. Girly stuff doesn't count as real politics, but it should be covered just in case enough women care about it in their voting choices. So let some chick cover it.

Goddess knows that the rifts around the question of gender are becoming ever more visible on our side, too.

Pardon me for that aside. These are the kinds of things Schlafly is famous for, from an interview/speech at Bates College in 2007:

For nearly two hours, she belittled the feminist movement as "teaching women to be victims," decried intellectual men as "liberal slobs" and argued that feminism "is incompatible with marriage and motherhood."



One came when Schlafly asserted women should not be permitted to do jobs traditionally held by men, such as firefighter, soldier or construction worker, because of their "inherent physical inferiority."

"Women in combat are a hazard to other people around them," she said. "They aren't tall enough to see out of the trucks, they're not strong enough to carry their buddy off the battlefield if he's wounded, and they can't bark out orders loudly enough for everyone to hear."

At one point, Schlafly also contended that married women cannot be sexually assaulted by their husbands.

"By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape," she said.

What a flexible thinker she is! Women are physically inferior in most every way, except that they cannot be raped once married.

We will always have the Phyllis Schlaflys among us. But do we really need to give them honorary doctorates?

|

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Teetering On The Edge 



It's like middle-class tightrope walking, this current economic scene in the United States. You step on the rope, hanging on to your balancing umbrella (that 401(k), that employer-provided health insurance policy, perhaps parents with some money) and you lift the other leg up in the air while the audience oos and ahs, watching the rope swing ever more violently under your foot.

And then the umbrella disintegrates, spine by spine, and there you are, trying to balance yourself with a stick.

One illness may be the exact distance which separates a middle-class household from poverty. Or one divorce or one job loss. When all these happen at the same time, kiss your ass goodbye (as they say in polite circles).

And none of this is worth complaining about, because in the side-rings of this grand circus of ours are the poor acrobats, trying to afford both bread and enough money to fill the old banger of a car so that they can get to work to earn that meager salary. Watch them let go of the bar, watch them fall, fall, fall towards the other swinging acrobat! Will their hands meet in time? You know, there is no safety net beneath them now.

You don't like to work in this circus? Then leave. There are plenty of desperate workers in China, India and Pakistan to take your place.
------
This is what caused my musings.
|

A League Of Their Own 






The All-American Girls Professional Baseball League some fifty years ago made the players play in skirts. They were also taught make-up skills and how to act feminine. Despite all that, the League folded in 1954. Television had brought men's baseball to homes and cut back on the numbers of possible spectators at the games themselves:

Popularized in the movie, A League of Their Own, the AAGBL teams played for twelve seasons. Over six hundred women played for Midwestern teams like the Rockford Peaches, the Muskegon Lassies, and the Racine Belles. According to the book, Women at Play by Barbara Gregorich, "For those who actually saw them play, the women of the AAGBL changed forever the unquestioned concept that women cannot play baseball. For their managers, they played the national pastime as only professionals can . . . . They were equal to the game . . . more serious than the skirts they were required to wear, more intelligent than the various board directors who would not let them become managers."

The All-American Girls Baseball League played its last season in 1954. Television was bringing men's major league games into people's living rooms, and there just wasn't enough audience for the women's league to continue.

In June of 1952, shortstop Eleanor Engle signed a minor league contract with the AA Harrisburg Senators. George Trautman, head of the minor leagues, voided the contract two days later, declaring that "such travesties will not be tolerated." On June 23, 1952, organized baseball formally banned women from the minor leagues.

There it crops up again, that formal banning of women from a field in which they are assumed not to excel anyway. I have always found that intriguing.

Anyway, the reason for this ramble down the history lane is that when I read about the WNBA teaching their players how to use make-up and how to dress I recalled the same services being given to those old time baseball gals:

As a skilled instructor guided them, the WNBA's new class of rookies spent part of their orientation weekend learning how to perfect their arcs.

The trainer demonstrated how to smooth out a stroke, provided an answer to stopping runs and showed them how getting good open looks can seem effortless.

It was not Lisa Leslie or another veteran teaching basketball fundamentals but a cosmetics artist brought in by the league last month to teach the rookies how to arc their eyebrows, apply strokes of blush across their cheekbones and put on no-smudge eyeliner to receive the right attention off the court.

As part of the rookies' orientation into life as professional athletes, the WNBA for the first time offered them hour-long courses on makeup and fashion tips. The courses, at an O'Hare airport hotel, made up about a third of the two-day orientation, which also featured seminars on financial advice, media training and fitness and nutrition.

"I think it's very important," said Candace Parker, the Naperville product who was the league's No. 1 draft pick out of Tennessee. "I'm the type who likes to put on basketball shorts and a white T, but I love to dress up and wear makeup. But as time goes on, I think [looks] will be less and less important."

The reasons behind these marketing moves are probably the same, too: To make the players look more sexually appealing to men and to reassure everybody that they are not lesbians. That those moves also make the women come across as less serious athletes doesn't seem to matter.

|

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid. 



John McCain may look like a cuddly great-uncle, but he does not have your best interest in heart:

Highlighting an issue he plans to use aggressively in the general election campaign, Sen. John McCain on Tuesday decried "the common and systematic abuse of our federal courts by the people we entrust with judicial power" and pledged to nominate judges similar to the ones President Bush has placed on the bench.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. "would serve as the model for my own nominees, if that responsibility falls to me," highlighting the gap between Republicans and Democrats on the question of who should sit on the Supreme Court. Both justices have established strong conservative records since Bush appointed them, and the appointment of one more conservative to the nation's highest court could tip the balance on issues such as abortion, discrimination, civil liberties and private property.

Are you one of those readers who loves sports metaphors? If so, McCain is proposing to have all the umpires decide for the other team. Property owners will win. There will be no justice for those who have been the victims of discrimination at work or at school. Civil liberties will only be about the right of religious people to act religious, nothing else. And corporations will win most everything.

This is one of the many issues at stake in the coming general elections: Whether the powerless and the poor have any legal recourse at all, whether there will be anything resembling justice in this country for the next few decades.

|

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

A Wolff In The Land Of Dry Pussies 



Michael Wolff has written an interesting meditation on the difficulties of being a middle-aged man in the United States. Suddenly, in the midst of life, he walks into a dark forest of despair and depression, and why? Not because of those cholesterol values or that mortgage payment or all those youthful plans he once had, plans, which are now as dry as the dandruff on his stooped hard-working family-man shoulders, no. It's because he can't get wet and gushy pussy anymore, young and bouncy and eager pussy.

Once upon a time this was all different. Powerful middle-aged men had mistresses, and nobody ratted on them:

J.F.K., so incredibly priapic so long ago, was protected not just because men protected their own (which they did) but also because at that time you literally couldn't describe what he had done. (There is a story Gore Vidal tells about J.F.K.: having sex in the bath, he liked to suddenly push a woman's head back underwater, causing her to fight for air, just as he was about to climax.) Now it's all good sport and entertainment.

What is now good sport and entertainment? Trying to drown the woman you are fucking in the bathtub? No, that was caused by my hapless clipping of the quote. What Wolff laments is the way the media hounds perfectly priapic middle-aged men into the limelight, there to be ridiculed and destroyed by the post-sexual cadre amongst us. Those would be older women, women in the Hillary Clinton mold:

The Hillary story is—and how could it not be?—largely a sexual one. This is not so much a sexist view as a sexualist view: What's up here? What's the unsaid saying? What's the vibe? Although it's not discussed in reputable commentary, it's discussed by everyone else: so what exactly is the thing with Hillary and sex, with the consensus being that she simply must not have it (at least not with her husband; there are, on the other hand, the various conspiracy scenarios of whom else she might have had it with). It's partly around this consensus view of her not having sex that people support her or resist her. She's the special-interest candidate of older women—the post-sexual set. She's resisted by others (including older women who don't see themselves as part of the post-sexual set) who see her as either frigid or sexually shunned—they turn from her inhibitions and her pain.

Isn't it all marvelous? The piece is like a long and painful erection, a love-song to the past which was full of sexually sated powerful middle-aged guys. They stuck together, covered for each other, and even if people found out nobody minded, because the world was their oyster. Of course, Viagra wasn't around those days and the rates of erectile problems seem to be fairly high without it among the middle-aged wolves in the land of dry pussies. But brush that off with your dandruff brush! We are talking about male lust here.

What about female lust? What? I can't quite hear you through all those wolves howling before going off hunting for some prey. Those young pussies are all waiting, ready to open and close, open and close, for the right middle-aged hunter. Yeah. That's the story.

Well, the second line of the title of the piece does talk about "human desire." It's just very, very hard to turn that into male AND female desire, so Wolff doesn't try. Women are mostly an obstacle to getting young pussy. Either they are wives who stop the middle-aged hunters or they are members of the dry pussy brigade or both. Then there are the women who moralize and make it difficult for the middle-aged pussy hunter to stay hidden from the limelight. Then, of course, there is the young pussy itself, but that doesn't seem to think about desire, either. It's a body part, after all.

The saddest part of Wolff's lament is here:

The argument pits empowered soccer moms against guilty dads, a prosecutorial matriarchy against a nolo contendere patriarchy. The erotic life of a man who holds most of society's financial and political power is now, in public parlance, only pitiable, or corrupt, or comic. A generation or two ago, there was, in so many of the greatest American novels, the figure of the middle-aged man liberated by sex or heroically jousting with it or making a separate peace with it—but those were written by men (Bellow, Roth, Updike, Cheever), and men neither much read nor much write novels anymore. The middle-aged man's middle-aged experience, lacking sympathetic and firsthand interpretation, has become mere reality TV—just about humiliations and buffoonery.

Why sad, you might ask. Because the same writer sees nothing sad in the view of most older women as post-sexual, as dry pussies without desire, and because that is exactly how older women have been portrayed, for centuries and because those older women who have been exposed as sexual creatures have surely been labeled as comic and pitiable. Remember the stories about Catherine the Great and the horses? Remember how Queen Victoria was rumored to hump her Scottish servant? To not see any of this is sad, but then wolves are far above pussies in that odd land the author inhabits.


-----------
For better analyses of the piece, check out Lance Mannion and Digby.

|

PTSD v. Combat 



Which will kill more U.S. military?

It might well be PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, a mental condition ("failure to cope") which can follow difficult experiences such as childhood abuse, rape, car accidents or being a participant in a war:

The number of suicides among veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may exceed the combat death toll because of inadequate mental health care, the U.S. government's top psychiatric researcher said.

Community mental health centers, hobbled by financial limits, haven't provided enough scientifically sound care, especially in rural areas, said Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. He briefed reporters today at the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting in Washington.

Insel echoed a Rand Corporation study published last month that found about 20 percent of returning U.S. soldiers have post- traumatic stress disorder or depression, and only half of them receive treatment. About 1.6 million U.S. troops have fought in the two wars since October 2001, the report said. About 4,560 soldiers had died in the conflicts as of today, the Defense Department reported on its Web site.

Based on those figures and established suicide rates for similar patients who commonly develop substance abuse and other complications of post-traumatic stress disorder, ``it's quite possible that the suicides and psychiatric mortality of this war could trump the combat deaths,'' Insel said.

There are reasons which make the second Iraq war especially likely to create PTSD. There are no safe places in that war, no time to relax. The military must always be super-vigilant, always alert, always scanning for bombs or possible enemies hiding in the crowds, tour after tour after tour. All that puts enormous pressure on the nervous systems of the soldiers.

Had I been one of the people in charge of this war I would have budgeted for lots of mental health care for the coming wave of PTSD sufferers. But then nothing about this war/occupation appears to have involved much planning, except for the victory celebrations.

|

Today's Funny 



No, it's not that ad I get every time I check my e-mail, the one which says "Zap Belly Fat and Boost Libido Fast. As Seen On Fox Tv," matched to a bikini-clad woman who swells up like a balloon, then shrinks back, then swells up again and so on. That one is meant to make me lose the last few seeds of sanity inside my girl brain.

What is funny are the anti-feminist bingo games by Hoyden About Town, from Down Under. There's the original one and then the sequel. Thanks to Linden in the comments for them.

It could be that they are not quite as funny for someone who doesn't do feminist blogging, but if that's the case for you, consider them educational.

|

What Goes With A Silver Star? 






You know, the third highest medal of honor? If you are a woman who gets it, you will also be removed from your unit. Yup:

A 19-year-old medic from Texas will become the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second woman since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest medal for valor.

Army Spc. Monica Lin Brown saved the lives of fellow soldiers after a roadside bomb tore through a convoy of Humvees in the eastern Paktia province in April 2007, the military said.

After the explosion, which wounded five soldiers in her unit, Brown ran through insurgent gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away, the military said.

The first woman to receive the Silver Star after WWII was Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, in Iraq.

But Monica Lin Brown was taken out of her unit, because of that army ban on women in combat units. The ban makes no sense in Iraq or in Afghanistan where the front is everywhere. Still, she was pulled:

Brown stayed in the field for two more days, while U.S. Apache helicopter gunships attacked insurgents and blew up the damaged Humvee. Within a week, however, she was abruptly called back to the sprawling U.S. base in Khost.

"I got pulled" by higher-ups, she said, because her presence as "a female in a combat arms unit" had attracted attention.

We must keep up appearances, I guess.

|

Monday, May 05, 2008

Paging Harry Potter 



Wizardry is afoot!

Substitute teacher Jim Piculas does a 30-second magic trick where a toothpick disappears then reappears.

But after performing it in front of a classroom at Rushe Middle School in Land 'O Lakes, Piculas said his job did a disappearing act of its own.

"I get a call the middle of the day from head of supervisor of substitute teachers. He says, 'Jim, we have a huge issue, you can't take any more assignments you need to come in right away,'" he said.

When Piculas went in, he learned his little magic trick cast a spell and went much farther than he'd hoped.

"I said, 'Well Pat, can you explain this to me?' 'You've been accused of wizardry,' [he said]. Wizardry?" he asked.

So Piculas loses his job.

It's very funny from one angle, and very scary from another angle, the latter angle being all about suddenly finding ourselves in the year 1200 C.E..

At least he won't be burned.

|

Look In The Mirror! 



Do you look like the Ten Most Influential Political Pundits in the U.S.?





Left to right: Mark Halperin, David Brooks, Jon Stewart, Tim Russert, Matt Drudge, John Harris & Jim VandeHei, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Karl Rove


White, male, middle-aged and conservative, with a few exceptions to that very last category. The newspaper that did the selecting is the U.K. Telegraph, a conservative paper, so they might well want to see conservative pundits as the most influential ones. But perhaps they really are, especially given the way the media bends over backwards when those dark mutters about it being liberal are heard.

There are no women among the top ten or no people of color. You have to dig further down in the list for those categories, and close your eyes because Ann Coulter is really high up on the list. Of course, women are only the majority in the population, so there's no worries about them not having anyone in the top ten. Besides, women don't WANT to be influential.

That's why the Time magazine only found 25 influential women among the one hundred most influential human beings. That's three times as many men as women. But the cover shows a slightly different distribution, with three women and six men. Perhaps I should count the men and women? Too tired. Sigh.




|

Every Sperm Is Sacred 



June 7 is the day when we all march against contraception! Well, not all of us, but those pro-lifers who are pro-lifers (or pro-forced-birth), because they really are against contraception. You see, contraception guarantees women some partial control over the times and frequencies of giving birth. It's an absolute necessity for any gender equality. So contraception is a Very Bad Thing.

Rhealitycheck has a post on this wonderful new protest day. It is to commemorate Griswold vs. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision in 1965 which essentially made contraceptives legal. I guess "commemorate" is not the word here, because these people want to make contraception illegal again, and you can see why, from this pro-life quote:

This confusing language, which has no relationship whatsoever to what the Founding Fathers intended, gave married women permission to use the birth control pill. The Supreme Court literally created the "right to privacy" out of thin air.

Isn't that first sentence so very Freudian? There's what the Fathers intended and there's the women who were given "permission"! Perhaps I'm the only one who found that giggle-worthy. But I'm pretty convinced that a very large number of pro-life activists are also anti-woman activists.

All that protesting is about the contraceptive pill and the pro-life insistence that it is an abortifacient, whatever studies show. I remember the first time I blogged about the "pill that kills" here; how very shocked many readers were over the idea that someone might try to get contraception banned, especially contraception that women can control. Now we are used to the thought that many Republican politicians would like to see contraception banned. So it goes.

|

To Help Women In Congo 



Here is a partial list of websites which send money directly to the women of Congo who are suffering:

Congo Global Action

Mercy Corps

Women For Women

These sites look ok to me, but I have not done deep research on them. I also found information on how to send money directly to the Panzi Hospital, but the information never cropped up except on small private blogs so I'm hesitant to include it here just in case it's not a legal way.

More information on what to do about the United Nations can be found in this article.

|

Unbelievable: Snow Leopards Sacrificed On The Altar of What Passes As Chic Anthony McCarthy. 

By way of The Good Roger Ailes:

The New York Times, securing its place in the pantheon of the liberal media, advises its readers where to buy a $2,500-$4,000 photographic "portrait of Andre Leon Talley and Lord Snowdon, both swathed in head-to-toe snow leopard."

Look, gape, spit then let the nyt wits know what you think. You think that maybe Sandra Ballentine thinks this is brilliantly transgressive?
|

Sunday, May 04, 2008

A Quick Listen and Look at The Early Clavichord by Anthony McCarthy 

If I was young again I’d learn to make clavichords and play them. Here’s a video showing one, giving a good look at how the simple mechanism works. It’s a series of keys, the ends of levers that cause a blade of copper, called a tangent, to touch a pair of strings, producing very quiet, infinitely delicate notes rich in overtones. The few times I ever got to play one proved that it needs the most careful touch of any keyboard instrument.

The clavichord was a very early keyboard instrument. In its earliest examples a pair of strings is touched by up to four tangents, arranged so none of the notes played on that string would have been commonly played at the same time. That saved on the number of strings needed and the size of the instrument.* As the harmonic language of music changed, later versions reduced the number of notes per string to no more than two, one note per string becoming common near the end of the 18th century.

Here are some of the earliest extant keyboard pieces from the 15th century. Three pieces, the first is Conrad Paumann’s setting of the song Mit Ganczen Willen, well known to music majors since it’s found in the universally used Historical Anthology of Music (ed. Willi Apel). The second is (an anonymous piece?) from the Buxheimer Orgelbuch followed by one by the early organist, Hans Kotter. The player is Ernst Stoltz.

Three pieces by anonymous Italian composers.

Two Miserere by William Byrd played by David Moroney

Tombeau de Monsieur Blancrocher by Johan Froberger, a great composer who isn’t known enough these days. The video of cemetery art is gloomy but no more than the magnificently gloomy music, again played by Ernst Stoltz.

There are other videos with pieces by later composers including J. S. and C. P. E Bach played on clavichord. Both are known to have owned clavichords, C. P. E. Bach was famous as a player and composer for the instrument. A lot of J. S. Bach’s instructional pieces fall within the most common range for the clavichord of his time so it’s possible that those were composed to be played on it.

* For more information about clavichords The Clavichord Society of Boston, not the president, but a member. And, this is a case when wikipedia has a pretty decent article on the subject.
|

Conclusions About Complex, Ill-defined Phenomena Require Extraordinarily Complete Evidence by Anthony McCarthy 

Despite what your experience might be, tall men are less jealous than shorter men and women of average height are less jealous because they’re healthier. Well, sometimes, that is. And this constitutes an “Insight” yielded from the social sciences. I know that because I read it in this morning's Boston Globe “Ideas” section. Here, I’ll give you the whole bolt:

PSYCHOLOGISTS IN EUROPE have found that your height can affect your propensity to jealousy. They asked men and women to indicate how jealous they were in their current relationships and how jealous they would be if they saw their partner talking to someone of the opposite sex. Taller men exhibited less jealousy. But for women, being of average height was associated with lower jealousy, apparently because average height confers better health and reproductive success in women, giving them less to worry about. There was an exception to this rule, though. When confronted with more dominant and higher-status rivals, average-height women were the more jealous ones. It could be that taller women gain some security from being perceived as stronger, which may reflect the idea that, at least in primitive cultures, women literally fought over men. (Wesley Bedrosian for the Boston Globe) more stories like this

Buunk, A. et al., "Height Predicts Jealousy Differently for Men and Women," Evolution and Human Behavior (March 2008).

Um, hum. Starting from the end, “at least in primitive cultures, women literally fought over men”. I had better come clean and say that I didn’t pay to download the published study found at “Evolution and Human Behavior” so I don’t know what this would be based on. I did read the abstract at "Evolution and Human Behavior" which doesn't mention "primitives". My guess is it’s another in the continuing series of “Just So” stories of adaptationist fable. Based on absolutely nothing, to put it plainly, except the wishful thinking of adaptationists and the rubes in the media who just so want them to be right about that. I don't know if it was from the "study" or if it might be supplied by the "reporter".

I’ve read a bit of the less taxing kind of anthropology and am guessing I’ve just happened to miss the majority of “primitive cultures” where it’s Sadie Hawkins day year-round. I don’t think there is the archaeological evidence to support that having been the dominant humanoid folk-way so as to have a dominant evolutionary impact now. You don’t seem to see it as the dominant pattern anywhere I know about today. But even if they could produce those cultures today, they are as contemporary as the folk who wrote this study so they would not be able to explain an evolutionary adaptation any more than a minute-dating service in any major metropolitan area now.

This whole idea of “primitive culture” is pretty condescending to people who aren’t engaged, mostly, in the most savage of all activities, destroying the planet. By the way.

Just looking at this account, and the abstract, I’d guess your study samples would have to be enormous to support conclusions about something this complicated, a lot bigger than those usually included in these kinds of “studies”.

You wonder how many people would have to be studied to really find out if tall men are less jealous and under what conditions you could come to a general conclusion about that. Given that they depend on the reporting of their subjects about their emotional state, the variability in the expression is as much a problem as the variation in what was felt. Maybe more taller men feel pressure to restrain expressions of jealousy, to maintain the facade of emotional detachment. Maybe they feel just as much or even more jealousy as short men but feel pressured to lie about it. To live up to their height, as it were. We have seen that men lie about sex, after all. Lying about their emotions? Are men never known to do that?

Or maybe the study didn’t control for differences in perception of threat. If you knew your spouse favored a certain type you might feel less threatened by a man with a different look. You would have to screen for differences in the threat of perception, wouldn' t you, to come up with a reliable measure of tendencies to feel jealousy? And even trying that would run into the same problems of relying on subjects reporting their emotions. In a small sample the difference in response to those factors could skew the "findings" rather dramatically. You’d have to make it a very complicated study to get past those barriers to accurate “findings” .

And get this: But for women, being of average height was associated with lower jealousy, apparently because average height confers better health and reproductive success in women, giving them less to worry about.

There is nothing “apparent” about it. If they want to contend that healthy women are less jealous, isn’t the way to test for that to test healthy and unhealthy women instead of basing it on height? There isn’t an absolute correlation of height and health, especially reproductive health. Just assuming that the taller women would have some innate sense of superior health is stretching it beyond reason.

I doubt they can really study something like this and draw any kind of reliable conclusion. They put together a combination of factors too complex in themselves to be easily studied, certainly not without an enormous number of randomly selected subjects.

This kind of stuff looks to me to be mostly a means of confirming the orthodoxy of adaptationism through twisting “findings” and pretending barriers to reaching the conclusions they want to find aren’t there. You would think that someone working for The Boston Globe would at least address these questions instead of acting as an echo of adaptationist ideology. I think I did get an insight, just not the one they might have expected.


* Because male height is associated with attractiveness, dominance, and reproductive success, taller men may be less jealous. And because female height has a curvilinear relationship with health and reproductive success (with average-height females having the advantages), female height may have a curvilinear relationship with jealousy. In Study 1, male height was found to be negatively correlated with self-reported global jealousy, whereas female height was curvilinearly related to jealousy, with average-height women reporting the lowest levels of jealousy. In Study 2, male height was found to be negatively correlated with jealousy in response to socially influential, physically dominant, and physically attractive rivals. Female height was negatively correlated with jealousy in response to physically attractive, physically dominant, and high-social-status rivals; in addition, quadratic effects revealed that approximately average-height women tend to be less jealous of physically attractive rivals but more jealous of rivals with "masculine" characteristics of physical dominance and social status.

Dealing with that number of vectors, you wonder how they even did the math.
|

Tim Russert Pulls A Tantrum, Arianna Breaks The Brawler’s Glass Jaw by Anthony McCarthy 

Big Tim, the big-shouldered Buffalo brawler apparently has revealed his inner big baby over Arianna Huffington calling him a “conventional wisdom zombie” in her latest book. The result is that her book tour seems to have been black listed by NBC. Looking at Russert’s specialty, “zombie” is letting him off the hook rather lightly. Zombies are unwillingly made to do the bidding of those who animate them, Russert doesn’t have to be told what to do, he knows exactly what satisfies his masters and makes him millions. He’s quite a few steps down from being a zombi to being a willing servant and oligarchic wannabee.

David Sirota also has things to say about Chris Matthews, another of NBC’s phony voices of blue collar America.

A recent New York Times Magazine profile of Matthews describes a name-dropping dilettante floating between television studios and cocktail parties. The article documents the MSNBC host’s $5 million salary, three Mercedes and house in lavish Chevy Chase, Md. Yet Matthews said, “Am I part of the winner’s circle in American life? I don’t think so.”

That stupefying comment sums up a pervasive worldview in Washington that is hostile to any discussion of class divides. Call it Matthews-ism an ideology most recently seen in the brouhaha over Barack Obama’s statement about economic dislocation.

The Illinois senator said that when folks feel economically shafted, they get “bitter.” Matthews-ism spun the truism into a scandal.

The Washington Post labeled Obama’s statements “Bittergate.” Tim Russert invited affluent political consultants on “Meet the Press” to analyze the “controversy,” with millionaire James Carville saying, “I’m hardly bitter about things.”*

Living in blue collar America full time, we are bitter and if the wealthy media can’t taste the wormwood yet just wait for the combination of gas and food prices, credit debt, destroyed social and governmental support and the bottomless pit of welfare reform. You haven’t experienced bitter until you see conservatives who find they’ve joined the people they hate in the underclass. Instant Jacobins all. And they'll be a lot harder to reason with than the real, full-time left.

* Sirota is pretty hard on Hillary Clinton’s use of the phony “bitter” scandal. Though I’d point out that she’s a politician running for office, she’s not pretending to be an impartial journalist supposedly restrained by requirements of accuracy and impartiality. I do think she shouldn’t have touched the “bitter” stuff. My biggest complaints about Hillary Clinton’s nomination campaign come mostly in the form of the idiots who have been running it and jerks like Carville speaking on her behalf in the media. Obama’s campaign has done some stupid stuff too and a big part of his online support is openly and disgustingly sexist, but I don’t think he hasn’t been as prone to doing that kind of damage to the democratic party.
|

Saturday, May 03, 2008

When A Persona Consumes A Life by Anthony McCarthy 

Please watch this video of Dusty Springfield singing “The Look of Love” with a slide show of photos of female impersonators of the past, before reading further.
______

Maybe not the greatest song ever written, but great singing. The slide show raises a lot of questions, the obvious ones being about the manipulation, flexibility and imprecision of the creation and interpretation of appearance, the distance between the image and the life of the person behind the image. And that’s not getting into the more obvious ones of the politics of transgender and the civil rights of people who exercise their right to choose their identity out of those available without regard to taboo. Important as those are.

Now, please watch this one of Dusty Springfield singing “The Son of a Preacher Man” noting her vintage costume and makeup.
_______

You wonder what it might have cost Dusty Springfield to play the part of a straight woman in her singing career, especially since she was one of the first, semi-officially, out lesbians in show business. With the way she could sing, the way she could put meaning even into banal lyrics and move an audience, you wonder if she might have liked to sing a song about loving a woman. I don’t know if the stories about her self-destructive behavior would have been different if she could have just been herself throughout her whole life but it must have taken some tole.

Later in her career Dusty Springfield went with a more natural look, there are You Tubes showing that period. She was a great singer, though some of her material and arrangements didn’t match her abilities. She was a lot like Patsy Cline in that.

Though I often didn’t care for her material, I always respected Dusty Springfield. She had no problem hearing the genius of and promoting black artists who were still dealing with the differentials of the bottom line, the most real and potent color line of them all, even today. And this as she dealt with the one there for even straight white women. That’s what she was doing in a period when other white singers were still ripping black artists off, left and right.

You read that some people said that she was “difficult”, especially the musicians that worked with her. But almost anyone who is a perfectionist in the arts uses what power is at their disposal to get the results they are trying for. She wouldn’t have been the singer she was without trying very hard to realize her ideas. Men generally wouldn’t have faced the same charge from the same behavior. What’s a vice for a woman in relation to men, would get turned into a virtue for a man. No one here has to be told that is generally true.
_______

Remembering the way that Peggy Lee sang the Gershwin song “How Long Has This Been Going On”* and looking for a video to post here a couple of weeks ago was where this piece began to form. Please watch it. You might find the makeup, yellow hair and false eye-lashes a little disturbing. I did, which was the reason I didn’t post it then. But listen to how Peggy Lee could float and hang a phrase in time without it coming down and then rest the next phrase on it with no effort at all. I can hear her do it, I couldn’t begin to tell you how she does it, no matter how many times I listen. I couldn’t imitate it anymore than I could Billie Holiday’s phrasing.

Peggy Lee was a fine artist, by that time an accomplished and experienced professional, who also had problems in life despite her success. Looking at the video, the makeup and look, matched with the steely eye and the icy persona, you might consider that those were taken as an expression of power, back then. Even as the song talked about surrendering to emotion, Peggy Lee was portraying a woman who was putting any man interested on notice that she was her own person. But it’s a rare person who can match that image in life.

Watching all three videos, the two singers and the female impersonators, brings up a lot of ideas about image and the how we portray ourselves to the world, or try to. You could contrast the high level of control the female impersonators had over their elaborately presented images, that of a lesbian who had to portray a straight woman to have a successful music career and a straight woman who had to maneuver through what would have then been explicitly considered and stated to be “a man’s world”. **

You have to think about what it might tell you about how we see ourselves and the ability of an image as seen by other people can overtake our intentions. Once something is out in the public, even an experienced adult has only a limited control of how that image is seen and even used by other people. Making a mistake in presenting an image of yourself is easy to do and hard to put behind you. The audience is fickle and a show business career depends entirely on its audience. Choices aren’t always made wisely or even shrewdly.

I’d heard the name Hannah Montana before this week but had assumed she was an animated character. I hadn’t known there was a 15-year-old Miley Cyrus until now. You have the sick feeling the scandal of the week could be the beginning sign of a too familiar kind of trouble.

Entertainment corporations chew up and spit out young women, who take the brunt of this kind of stuff, at an incredible rate. The age of those spit out seems to get lower all the time. There are scores of lives and careers that get damaged by the insistence on girls living up to a false front, along with the follies of their promoters trying to keep them current in publicity as they grow up. Just growing up is hard enough without people three or more times your age trying to use you.

A 15-year-old girl is not a woman, she isn’t an adult, as pointed out here the other day, she is a child. No one has the right to pretend they believe that she is going to have the maturity, self-confidence and experience to protect herself against the attack of celebrity. Pretending she is able to robs her of the most basic civil right of all children, to protection by adults and by society in general. I include Annie Leibovitz and Vanity Fair in the charge of using her recklessly. Their alibi that her parents were in on the photo-shoot doesn’t suffice. Possible irresponsibility by parents doesn’t make a child fair game for the media. The photographer and magazine have more experience than just about anyone in what can happen when the image they publish is an attempt to gain publicity by breaking an image of innocence, real or artificial. A tediously superficial, and rather repetitious attempt at that most commercially superficial of all modern virtues, ‘transgression’ by flirting with the conventions of soft, antique kiddie porn is what I take from the published images.

For the life of me, I don’t understand what it is some people on the left don’t get about Leibovitz and those who pay her. If she was a sleazy, cigar chomping man four times older than Miley Cyrus, taking exactly the same images, no one would have much problem deciding exactly what to make of it. But she’s Annie Leibovitz, using a girl a quarter of her age to make a splash and sell some pictures. Do these pictures tell us about reality? Can they come close to the celebrity portraits of Lotte Jacobi? No. While part of that is the depth of the subjects, she is no Jacobi.

To lay the responsibility entirely on the parents and others in the entourage of a young girl, doesn’t erase a national magazine’s irresponsibility of joining in a publicity stunt that risked possible damage to a very real girl. “Journalism” isn’t an excuse for using a real, live child like that. Neither is art. What might be a matter of clear cut press freedom without infringement on other peoples’ rights if no real children are used becomes a compromised image when a real child is made use of like this.

* And just because it is great playing, here’s Ben Webster playing the same song.

**Extra Credit: Mae West singing “My Old Flame”, observe and draw your own conclusions.
|

Friday, May 02, 2008

Giving voice to fertility (by Suzie) 


A new study says men and women find women's voices more attractive at the time of the month when the women are most fertile. You may be able to access the full article, by Nathan Pipitone and Gordon Gallup of the State University of New York at Albany, here.
Studies like this are great for the media because they can be illustrated with sexy women or just parts of sexy women, such as open, red lips. Plus, reporters get to write about the "battle of the sexes" as if we were on a level playing field. But wait, there's more science to report, courtesy of New Scientist:
The fact that men notice the differences in vocal attractiveness suggests that there is a subtle evolutionary battle of the sexes going on, says Gallup: as women evolve ever more efficient ways to conceal fertility - to avoid unwanted attention - men become increasingly sensitive to the tiny changes that do occur. Other women also pick up on the changes, perhaps to keep an eye on the competition, he suggests.
How do we know that this whole women's-voices-tied-to-fertility-and-men-sense-it thing has changed over time? Maybe it was always this way. Why would evolution help women conceal their fertility? Wouldn't it make sense that the women who shout from the rooftop, "Hey, I'm fertile! Let's have sex!" would be the ones most likely to pass along their genes, as compared with the women who are busily evolving ways to conceal their fertility? Why would women rate voices as "attractive" in women with whom they are trying to compete? Why would women be attracted to the voice of a competitor?

|

Friday Critter Blogging 



By John JS (I don't know the name of this beautiful creature):





By swampcracker (a courting snowy egret):





And the next two are by Doug (Doug's doggie(s)):







|

Interrogating Headlines 



Doesn't that sound very academic and studied? I'm chiming in to Suzie's earlier post.

Imagine that there was a gruesome murder story about cannibalism, about someone who kept the victims in a cave until ready to be eaten. Would the headline about it be something like:

Austria searches soul after gourmet meal dungeon

Yet this is an actual headline about the Austrian rape-incest case:

Austria searches soul in sex dungeon aftermath

And do check out this post by Shakespeare's sister, on the trivialization of issues having to do with violence against women.

|

Deconstructing news releases (by Suzie) 



          News releases open a window onto our culture, and sometimes I’d like to toss the writers through it. A friend sent me a sample from her inbox:
          Subject: Top 10 Tips for a Successful Bake Sale
Share Our Strength’s Fifth Annual Great American Bake Sale® is in full swing this spring! The national campaign, working to make sure no kid in America grows up hungry, is helping to feed the 12.6 million American children currently suffering from hunger and food insecurity. Registrants can sign up to hold their own local Bake Sale at www.greatamericanbakesale.org.
          This makes me think of a slogan popularized by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom: “It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need, and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.”
         Another interesting aspect of this news release: The writer knows that many journalists love lists of tips; they think readers - especially women - are too busy to read stories.
         Subject: Snacks in the City: Get the Dish on the 'Snack-Tasking' Scene
Whether running from one meeting to the next, joining gal pals at the movie theatre for that long-awaited Hollywood premiere, or reading a best-selling “chick lit” book, today’s savvy women are looking for ways to shine in each possible snacking scene.
Pack That Purse: Never be caught unprepared. Take along a smart snack so it’s within reach when cravings strike.
Count It Out: Managing portion control is the key to sticking to a calorie budget. Pick up a snack pack or divide your favorite snack into servings of 100 calories or less and place them in easy-to-grab containers for do-it-yourself portion control.
Turn up the Volume: A light snack with crunch factor can bring added enjoyment to munching.
Live It Up: Indulge those cravings—just don’t go overboard. Enjoying a few bites helps curb desires and prevents overdoing it in the future.
         Women just cannot discipline our desires and our bodies enough. (I'm not immune. I'm currently keeping a food diary and hey, thanks for these tips.)
          Subject: NEW – Gift for Baby
Cord Blood Registry, the nation's largest and most acclaimed private bank, has introduced a GIFT REGISTRY! CBR's registry provides a convenient way for friends and family to help with the cost of cord blood banking.
  Subject: Perfect Mother's Day Gift: Insect Shield Apparel
As you are planning Mother's Day stories, there is a best kept secret for Mom your readers may not yet know about - Insect Shield Repellent Apparel. Insect Shield clothing offers protection while you are enjoying outdoor pursuits, traveling to buggy locales, gardening or simply trying to relax with family in the backyard.
          I laughed at the headline, and was irritated by the implication that it’s always the mother’s job (not the father’s) to buy clothes and care for kids. But then I read that “Buzz Off Insect Shield works with agencies and international relief organizations that work to protect at-risk populations from insect-borne diseases.” I don’t know the efficacy of this brand, but this news release underscores the provincialism of U.S. journalism. Generally, a reporter would need to find a local angle, such as the clothes are manufactured in their city or a local person would be testing the clothes overseas. The assumption is that readers will not be interested unless there's a local angle. As a result, readers lose out on a lot of interesting stories around the world.
  Subject: Moms Not Taking Kids’ Medical Condition Seriously, Experts Find
PHILADELPHIA, PA, APRIL 24, 2008 - Often wracked with shame, embarrassment and self-loathing, an astonishing number of young girls suffering from hyperhidrosis – chronic excessive sweating – find themselves victimized not only by the disease itself, but also from the difficulty in eliciting their mother’s compassion and aid to effectively treat this misunderstood medical condition. This according to the International Hyperhidrosis Society (IHHS) - a nonprofit offering the most objective, credible and timely information available on the subject along with expert and peer-based community support.
         “Hundreds of thousands of teenage girls around the world suffer from hyperhidrosis, but their emotional and physical suffering is not taken seriously by uninformed mothers who dismiss their daughter’s complaints due simply to being uninformed and unaware,” said Lisa J. Pieretti, executive director of the IHHS. “Desperate, alone, depressed and afraid, far too many young girls ultimately suffer in silence, learning how to live with a condition that could readily be managed if they - and their mothers - only knew how.”
         To help foster dialogue on the subject between mothers and daughters, this Mother’s Day the IHHS will launch “Take 10 for 10” – a disease awareness initiative encouraging moms to take just 10-minutes out of their holiday to conduct a 10-question assessment with their daughters to discern if the child may, in fact, have hyperhidrosis - and to generally discuss how excessive sweating has adversely impacted her daughter’s life. 
           I couldn't find anything on this Web site to indicate that girls sweat more than boys or that mothers are less sympathetic than fathers. But marketing often is done by gender, and someone decided to gear this to Mother’s Day. Because it would seem duplicative and derivative, it’s unlikely they’ll do the same appeal to fathers and sons for Father’s Day. It’s interesting that the nonprofit chose to use Mother’s Day to criticize mothers, telling them about one more way they are failing their children. 
         The Web site does discuss a Harris survey that found that girls and women are more likely to be embarrassed by sweating. Once again, women are under more pressure to control their bodies. Along those lines, I loved a recent comment on the satiric TV show “Ugly Betty.” A female executive runs into Betty in an office restroom and blurts out: "Betty, I'm so sorry. I try to keep up the appearance that I never use the bathroom. I hope you won't think any less of me."

|

Can't Stop the Serenity (by Suzie) 



      Since 2006, fans of Joss Whedon have raised more than $160,000 for his favorite charity, Equality Now, by showing his movie "Serenity." I'll be going to one of these screenings in June. Check out the schedule.
       I've long admired Equality Now, which "works to end violence and discrimination against women and girls around the world through the mobilization of public pressure." Its site includes answers to questions submitted to Clinton and Obama.
       If you haven't already seen the video of Joss getting an award from Equality Now in 2006, you must. I insist. You'll thank me later. If nothing else, you may enjoy how he skewers insipid journalists.

|

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Mission Accomplished 






That was five years ago. My, how time flies when we are having fun. Not.

Notice the militarized and sexualized image in that picture. War as a computer game where nothing is real, where presidents can pretend that they are bomber pilots, where was is over just on someone's say-so.

|

The Congo Nightmares 



For a few weeks I have been collecting material on the mass rapes in Congo, on the use of war as organized, cold and murderous misogyny, on the scant attention this has received (yes, including from me) and on the best way to address the awful horrors that are taking place there, especially to women.

And during the nights those horrors come back to me, dance their macabre dances in my dreams and make me sit up in bed unable to breathe, internally screaming. I cannot pass that on to you, I cannot. Eve Ensler has written one of the more optimistic articles on the hell that is Congo, one which she begins by stating that she just came back from hell.

So be forewarned, be very forewarned, before you read any of the gruesome descriptions of the lives of the raped women of Congo.

Having said that, I shall now give you a tour of some other pieces which let you learn more about the events there. A useful beginning point is Jeffrey Gettelman's article from last October. From that you can move to reading about Dr. Mukwege's efforts to help the women, about his clinic, and about his trip to the United States to talk about the suffering of Congolese women.

More on the difficulties the survivors have in finding justice can be found in Olivia Ward's recent article. Stephen Lewis gives the United Nations a well-deserved failing grade in how it has addressed this particular case of torture, and Anna Clark explains the difficulties that those face who try to make the rest of the world more informed about the hell that is Congo.

Lisa Jackson's documentary Greatest Silence gives a more visual way of learning about the events:





While my blog also gets a well-deserved failing grade on writing about these issues, many other blogs have addressed them. I find the Diary of An Anxious Black Woman a useful entry point to that discussion.

I hope to write more about the deeper questions that the atrocities in Congo ask all of us, questions that have to do about the causes of the rise in extreme misogyny. But that will be later.

|

For First of May 



This day has all sorts of meanings, but one of them has to do with the celebration of spring. The traditional drink in Finland on this day is "sima", a kind of mead. Sadly, it needs several days to bubble, so you can't make it for today. But I'm going to give you the child-safe recipe for next year:


Ingredients:

8 liters water
1/2 kg brown sugar
1/2 kg white sugar
4 lemons
1/4 tsp fresh yeast or equivalent dried yeast
optional but traditional:
raisins

What to do:

Boil part of the water and pour on the sugars. If you like a darker color drink, use all brown sugar (one kilo).

Add the rest of the water and the juice from the lemons. (Real recipes chop up the lemons, peels and all and add it all, but juice is fine, too). When the mixture is hand-warm, add the yeast. Let stand for one day in room temperature, covered.

Bottle the following morning. Add one teaspoon of sugar and a few raisins in each glass bottle. Cover (but not too tightly as the bottles will explode over time if you do.) Let stand for seven days in a cool place or three days in room temperature. Consume within a week.

You can make this quite alcoholic but I'm not giving that recipe.

The traditional accompaniment is a kind of a doughnut, made by letting the batter drip into the hot fat so that it creates something which looks like a big knot of threads. You dust the knots with icing sugar.

They are both quite nice. After eating them you can go out to watch the communists march in some countries. Or to watch the students celebrate spring in many countries. Of course, here in the United States this day has been declared A National Prayer Day. Probably to keep the communists away.

Note how very masculine and militaristic that National Prayer Day site is. For instance, this picture is from the site:




|

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!