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

Monday, June 30, 2008

The Flea's Eye View To The Environment 



I was thinking about this today while walking in an area where bugs were everywhere. So many articles view the environmental crisis we might be facing as something to do with how humans could best control it, and many of those articles have the hidden assumption that the humans are the bosses, that the earth is our property and that all we need to figure is how to make the earth do what we want it to do.

It might be a fair stance to take. But suppose, instead, that our situation is more like that of fleas living on a dog (say, a smart poodle), and that we, the fleas, are smart enough to understand that what we are doing to the dog (living off it) is something the dog would rather not experience. If we go overboard on our blood sucking activities, the dog will get sick and might even die. Or -- horror of horrors! -- IF there is an owner to this planetary dog, the owner might decide to give it a fleabath. With poisons.

This changes the way the problem of environmental degradation might be seen. First, we have to try to survive without killing the dog (earth) and that might mean that we have to control the population of fleas. Also, if we are really smart fleas we should figure out how to suck the blood with the least damage to the host.

|

Meanwhile, in Romania 



An eleven-year old girl, allegedly pregnant from rape by her uncle, is allowed to have an abortion even though her pregnancy is past the fourteen week legal limit in her country:

At a meeting, a Romanian government committee member, Vlad Iliescu, read out an emotive letter from the girl.

"I want to go to school and to play. If I can't do this, my life will be a nightmare," the letter said.

Iliescu said a 21-week-old foetus would have a 1% chance of survival. He added that "the girl's mental health would be severely affected if she had a baby".

Members had discussed the options of allowing the girl to travel to Britain for a termination or ruling she must continue with her pregnancy.

The UK has one of the highest legal limits for abortion in Europe, at 24 weeks. A Romanian living in Britain offered to meet the abortion costs.

The girl's parents discovered she was pregnant earlier this month after they took her to a doctor because she appeared unwell.

She told doctors she had been raped by her uncle, who allegedly threatened her and has since disappeared.

There's something horrible about all this being discussed all over the world, actually. We should be discussing the uncle's alleged behavior and he's the one who should be in the court of world opinion, not this little girl.

|

You Know What's Funny to Bill Kristol? Misogyny 



Watch this video to see a conversation about misogyny and sexism which reads very differently as a transcript than the way it sounds. Kristol is making fun of misogyny. Pay attention to his face and the face of the interviewer.





The guys are smirking all through it. Smirking, note.

What about the meat in that sexism-is-funny sandwich? The bit about the Republicans not being as misogynist as the Democrats:

Summary: On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol, who previously declared that "[w]hite women are a problem ... we all live with that," stated of Sen. Hillary Clinton: "She's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I'm appalled by, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party. You know, we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women."

Much more open to strong women? Are they indeed? And who is it who has loved to hate Hillary Clinton for the last twenty years or so? It's the wingnut wing of the Republican Party, that's who, and even in the recent primaries the most viciously sexist comments came from right-wing talk show hosts and pundits.

Much more open to strong women? Like in the sense of wanting women to shut up and not to have the right to take discriminating employers to court? Like in the sense of wanting women not to have rights over their own bodies? Or like in opposing every single attempt to let American women have maternity leaves. Sigh.

Sure, the Republicans like a few token women, as long as those token women hate women, too. Ann Coulter comes to mind. A woman, sure, but one who thinks that it was a big mistake to let women have the right to vote. The other ones I can think of (Dr. Laura or the gals of the Independent Women's Forum) are all similary against women's rights. What's the latest book on these topics from the wingnuts? Something like Save the Males. Nuff said.

But the whole question of what makes a woman "strong" in the mind of guys like Kristol is fascinating, and it might well be worth our while to poke that one around a little.

|

Sunday, June 29, 2008

Our Finer Feelings (by Phila) 

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to execute people who rape children, I've heard and read a lot of gloating over the notion that these rapists will simply end up getting beaten to death by their fellow inmates. It's one of the few things the average American "knows" about incarcerated criminals: they tend to hate child molesters, and will beat and kill them when they can. "Prison justice," they call it, with a faint hint of envy.

The lack of mercy shown by the unmerciful on these occasions is supposed to tell us something about how abysmally low child molesters rate on the moral scale. But I've always suspected that it tells us a lot more about how easily people find things to feel self-righteous about, no matter what they themselves may be guilty of.

You can gun down a child's father in a liquor store robbery. Or beat a child's mother into a coma while raping her. Or vote against childhood healthcare services in your capacity as a member of Congress. Or cheer and wave the flag as a foreign city is bombed. But as long as you hate -- really, really hate -- child rapists, you can flatter yourself that you're on the side of the angels. No matter what you might've done to children through inattention or neglect, or for money -- no matter what you might still be doing -- you aren't as bad as you could be, as long as you can get yourself into a murderous rage over someone else's sexual abuse of a child.

Behind all the sentimental handwringing over the helplessness and innocence of children there's an unspoken assumption that there are better targets for exploitation and abuse and rape and murder. The shadow image of the innocent child who doesn't deserve to be raped is the guilty woman who does, because she wore the wrong clothes or stayed out too late.

We idolize the state of unknowing we call "innocence"...and punish young people for making "bad choices," even when they're a logical result of the ignorance we thrust upon them as a moral ideal. It makes no sense, but who cares? Child-rape cries out for the death penalty specifically because of the lasting psychological damage it inflicts on children...but an adult criminal who was raped as a child deserves no mercy. It's logically indefensible, but so what? Representing children as quasi-angelic messengers of goodness and purity makes them more attractive targets for rapists, and promising these rapists the death penalty in advance gives them no incentive to stop short of murdering their victims. It's dangerous and dumb, but what of it? If it feels good, do it!

McCain and Obama have both denounced the SCOTUS ruling; they agree, as serious men must, that such a "heinous crime" deserves the ultimate punishment. If either man is obliged to drop bombs on children in some other country -- Iraq, let's say -- he'll have no problem being accepted in polite society, though a few hysterics like myself may question whether it really is more "heinous" to rape one child than to mutilate hundreds or thousands with shrapnel.

It all comes down to one's intentions, I guess. The fact that we can overcome our natural abhorrence of hurting children long enough to destroy entire city blocks, regardless of how many children live in them, suggests that our intentions are basically good. Why else would we make such a superhuman effort to put aside our finer feelings?

The fact that we hate people who rape children -- really, really, really hate them, a lot! -- clinches the deal. And if anyone doubts our sincerity, or accuses us of using hackneyed and contradictory abstractions to ennoble or excuse our own everyday brutality, we can always point out that even the most hardened criminals know there's nothing worse than raping a child. QED!

If it were up to me, raping a 20-year-old would seem just as "sick" as raping an eight-year-old, and all the idolaters of innocence, and the self-appointed assessors of other people's "choices," and the people who hold up children as human shields against the justified criticism of policies that are essentially anti-human, would have to fold up their tents and seek honest work.

In the meantime, if children really are so precious that to abuse them, or injure them, or blight their lives is a crime that cries out for merciless punishment, so much the worse for all of us.
|

Second Best (by Phila) 

Samuel Staley of the Reason Foundation has some advice for mass-transit advocates:
Transit’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to provide a reliable, superior alternative to its competition, not a “second best” alternative that consumers choose when they can’t afford their first choice (e.g., the automobile).
This strikes me as odd reasoning. If people increasingly can't afford to drive, being perceived as the second-best transportation option doesn't seem like such a bad thing, from a business perspective. Staley assumes that consumer preference will have a stronger long-term effect on transportation choices than the affordability of owning and operating a car; you don't have to be an "alarmist" to wonder whether this is really the case. (Nor do you have to be a communist to wonder whether Staley has any real interest in people for whom riding mass transit is not a choice, but a necessity.)

I'm old-fashioned enough to subscribe, more or less, to Guy Debord's view that the car is not "essentially a means of transportation," so much as "the most notable material symbol of the notion of happiness." To the extent that this is accurate, comparing a car to a bus or a train is somewhat misleading; much of what a car offers consumers is symbolic or otherwise nonessential, and much of this "value" may evaporate as gas prices rise (cf. the recent decline of cruising, which Atrios brings up).

That's a relatively theoretical objection, though. My real disagreement with Staley is a bit more concrete:
What transit cannot do is depend on high gas prices to make us worse off financially in order to push us out of our cars and onto buses and trains. Nor should transit advocates use public policy to purposely degrade the quality of transportation alternatives such as the car to tip the scales unfairly in transit’s favor.
Of course, public policy routinely degrades the quality of mass transit to tip the scales in favor of cars, and has for decades. Indeed, that's one of the reasons Staley can describe mass transit in generally negative terms. But this type of planning doesn't bother Staley, it seems; it's simply the natural order of things, and so obvious as to be invisible. (Elsewhere, Staley complains that "transit lost its way more than four decades ago when it largely ignored the needs and desires of a wealthier and more mobile middle class." For some reason, I'm picturing segregated, bulletproof buses that offer door-to-door service.)

Anyway, mass transit needs to improve to be viable...but that improvement apparently can't inconvenience drivers, or be justified by reference to higher gas prices. It's almost as though the cards are stacked in favor of auto dependency. To quote Debord again, "those who believe that the particulars of the problem are permanent want in fact to believe in the permanence of the present society."
|

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Obama Nation (by Phila) 

Like all good-hearted people, I was initially troubled by Barack Hussein Obama's status as a Metrosexual Muslim Marxist radical with no experience. But I soon found out that this was just the tip of the iceberg.

In addition to being too black and not black enough, and being unable to master the shifting demands of diner etiquette, and spurning all-American delicacies like cheese and salami because he'd rather sip arugula-infused martinis at elite country clubs while pouring his patrician scorn over honest sons of the soil like Karl Rove, he's also in utter thrall to a radical Christian preacher whose controversial views he prissily denounced (out of the basest opportunism and disloyalty, I hasten to add).

Not a very flattering portrait, you'll agree. But there's a worse revelation to come. Indeed, this may be the last straw:
Is Obama devotee of monkey-god idol?

A group of Hindus in India have presented Sen. Barack Obama's campaign with a two-foot Hindu monkey-god idol after hearing the candidate carries a smaller version of the Lord Hanuman good-luck charm with him as he vies for the presidency....

"Obama has deep faith in Lord Hanuman, and that is why we are presenting an idol of Hanuman to him," said Bhama.
Some might be inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. But I say that if there's a one-percent chance that Obama's a secret Hindu (as well as a secret Muslim and an overly liberal radical Christian), we need to treat it as a certainty. Or to put it another way, z0mfg Obama totly worshipz teh monkey god!

If you want to vote for a one-man Muslim-Hindu-Christian Holy War, suit yourself. But speaking as a concerned lifelong Democrat, I'm casting my vote for Gene Amondsen.

At least you know where he stands.
|

The Latest Research (by Phila) 

The Telegraph gives us a vibrant account of what it calls "the latest research":
According to the latest research women have negative feelings after a fling and remain unhappy with fleeting sexual encounters.

Researchers said the permissive society sparked during the Sixties was supposed to free women to enjoy casual sex just like men but it had failed.
That's what researchers say, and who are we to gainsay them? They have statistics on their side, for one thing. Eighty percent of men claimed to feel sexually satisfied after a one-night stand, compared to 54 percent of women. Men are more likely to boast to their friends about their "conquests," too.

Could this have anything to do with what has come to constitute "appropriate" behavior for men and women in this situation...exacerbated, perhaps, by certain small but important differences in physiology?

Fuck no. Women have simply failed to adapt to the world as it was, is, and shall ever be, despite the best efforts of "the permissive society":
The study concluded women "have not adapted" to meaningless sex because it did not suit them at this stage in evolution.
I submit that casual sexual encounters in which one's role is essentially to give a man something to ejaculate into, and something to brag about to his friends the next day, are not "meaningless" at all. And their meaning, I'd say, is probably what causes a good deal of the dissatisfaction and remorse these women are feeling, the eternal and all-compelling call of marriage and childbirth notwithstanding. "Permission" to engage in behavior that a pretty large portion of society still regards as "slutty" is not necessarily permission to enjoy sex as an equal partner. And the idea that as long as men are happy with a situation, a woman's dissatisfaction can only represent a failure to adapt is chilling even by the glacial standards of evolutionary psychology.

Obligatory notes on methodology:
A total of 1,743 men and women who had experienced a one-night stand were asked to rate both their positive and negative feelings the following morning, in an internet survey.
|

Friday, June 27, 2008

Starlets and groupies (by Suzie) 



      I was reading a story about women dropping out of science careers on the ABC News site, when I saw a slide show titled "Jen: Starlet turned groupie?" and a photo of Jennifer Aniston. I clicked on it, and it had two different headlines for each photo and blurb: "Star by day, groupie by night" and "H'wood starlets, rock groupies." OMFG, this is ABC News. 
      The slide show includes Nicole Kidman, Drew Barrymore, Kate Hudson and Kirsten Dunst; other well-paid, well-known women; plus the required Paris Hilton mention. I guess "starlet" now applies to any female celebrity, even ones who make millions or win Academy Awards. "Groupie" used to mean female fans who had sex with musicians. ABC has now extended it to any famous woman who has a relationship, whether one date or marriage, with a musician. For example, singer Ashlee Simpson married rocker Pete Wentz. They're both in the music world, but she's tagged as the groupie. Apparently, men who have relationships with female musicians are not groupies, and there's no male equivalent of "starlet."
     
|

Should society pay for fertility treatment for poor women? (by Suzie) 



       My short answer: No.
       If you're interested in the subject, I encourage you to read this column by Pamela Merritt, and the comments that were posted. There are some fascinating arguments.
       Merritt notes the high cost of infertility treatment, and the limits of insurance coverage. She asks who society deems worthy of motherhood. 
This election year, universal healthcare coverage is a key issue, but universal coverage for infertility treatments has not been part of the discussion even though infertility treatment remains economically out of reach for many who need it. As a reproductive justice issue, the right to choose is clearly being denied those seeking treatment for infertility. But the reproductive rights of low-income and poor people continue to be held hostage to the values of a society that associates money with a person's worthiness to receive medical treatment.
         I’d like to see our society get truly universal health care first. I’d like to make adoption easier and much more affordable. I’d also prefer society address the myriad difficulties for poor children before paying for infertility treatments for poor women.
          In my teen years, my family was poor. I have family members who are poor. If one said she wanted expensive infertility treatments, my reaction would be: What?!? 
          No one should force women to bear children, nor should women be prevented from having children they desire. But does society have an obligation to help women conceive and give birth? If so, is there any limit on how many kids we would pay for? In other words, could a woman keep getting infertility treatments as long as her health held out? Would there be an age cutoff, or could a 50-year-old ask for infertility treatments? If a woman with a fatal disease wanted infertility treatments, should society pay for them? If women have this right, should society also help men who are infertile?
          I've paired this post with the one below, in which I explain I never wanted children. Have my own desires clouded my thinking on this?
   
           
|

Have children now! (by Suzie) 



       I had an arranged marriage. By 30, I had had a random sampling of the male population, and I was ready to settle on one. The man I was dating had a lot of good qualities for a husband, and so, I proceeded as if marriage could be arranged like a mortgage.
       We got a mortgage and lived together for a year before marriage. After the wedding, perhaps only a few minutes after the wedding, people began pressuring us to reproduce. I never wanted children, but everywhere I turned, I ran in to people wanting to know why, why, why!?
        My husband and I ended up divorcing, and in a sense, it may have been because we had not had children. It’s not that we disagreed on kids. If we had had kids, however, I think we would have stuck it out on their behalf. Would we have been better off? I don’t think so, but I have no way of predicting future outcomes by altering various past decisions.
         This topic has been on my mind since I got a news release promoting a parenting column by Alan Singer, a New Jersey family therapist. He tells parents to talk to their adult children, to URGE their children to marry instead of live together because that will increase their odds of staying together. Parents also should tell their children about all the physical risks of delaying conception and birth.
          In an earlier column, Singer acknowledges that “there is considerable research showing that marital satisfaction decreases with the arrival of each child,” but if couples know that, they can take steps to improve their marriage.
         Maybe it’s different in New Jersey. Where I’ve lived, however, there’s plenty of pressure to marry and reproduce. Nell also talked about this in recent comments.
         In lieu of Singer, I prefer what Amy Richards, author of “Opting In,” has to say. Laura Barcella notes that Richards addresses Sylvia Ann “Hewlett's controversial book 'Creating a Life,' and the backlash that surrounded her claims that 20- and 30-something women should ‘hurry up’ if they want to have kids.” Richards responds:
         Initially I misunderstood her to be saying that every [woman] should want to have babies, now. Then I reread it. What she was really saying was that if women want to have babies, they need to think about it sooner rather than later. I became more sympathetic [to Hewlett's message]. No one wants to use ART [Assisted Reproductive Technology] to have children; most want to have their own biological children. If that's what most women want, it's lying to tell them that it's safe to put it off until their late thirties/forties.
          … In their early thirties, women should be starting to ask themselves, "Do I want kids?" Know what your options are before you're in a vulnerable or desperate place.
ETA: See the comments for a response from Dr. Singer. 
|

Friday Critter Blogging 



These pictures are from tispaquin The first one is a lovely spider on an equally lovely flower head:





And then some kitties, all litter-mates, looking through the window at the passing of the Republican era:




|

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Shallow Thought For The Day 



I write too much. My brain-box sounds hollow when tapped today. Even my demons are asleep. This means that you, my sweet and erudite readers (as well as honored trolls) get mostly fluff today. Like the bumper sticker I saw recently:

Bipartisanship:
I will hug your elephant if you will kiss my ass.


Funny, eh? It's relevant, because bipartisanship usually means the reverse: Doing things the wingnut way, and that's why we are seeing more and more demands for bipartisanship now that the Republicans are no longer in absolute power, which they used to seed the nonpolitical appointments in the Department of Justice with only conservatives, say. Now that was the kind of bipartisanship the Republicans like: Both parties working for their benefit, together, while singing Kumbaya.

Of course Reid sorta agrees with the wingnuts. And so does Hoyer. Only dirty fucking hippies disagree with that polite definition of bipartisanship.

|

Garden Blogging 






Bleeding Hearts

The white form of dicentra spectabilis, the common bleeding heart, is a lesson in pure elegance. It grows happily in quite deep shade which it relieves with the fresh green of its filigreed leaves and the heart-shaped ivory pendants of its inflorescences. Combined with hostas and pulmonarias, it offers just the right touch of lightness, like the finely wrought lace on the otherwise stern dress of an Elizabethan gentleman.

Gardeners love the bleeding heart for its kind-natured temperament. It is easy to grow (although the white form somewhat less so than its pink sibling), starts flowering early enough to be used with tulips in the same colors for an unbeatable combination, yet continues, at least in northern gardens, for several more weeks after the tulips have packed it in. Its only character flaw is its penchant for early dormancy. In my garden it goes underground by the end of July, leaving its absence as notable as its presence was earlier.

This can be avoided by choosing some other form of dicentra, such as dicentra eximia. But the romantic in me prefers the common bleeding heart. The Finns call it the broken heart, and this is how I always think of the plant; a sufferer from unrequited love, true, but one which valiantly tries to go on, producing love offering after love offering in the shape of small hearts for all to admire. Yet each and every one of them emerges broken.

At last it simply can't tolerate this any longer. Like so many unhappy young lovers in books, plays and operas, it chooses an early death over a loveless existence.

So sad, don't you think? But also so right, somehow, if we wish our gardens to reflect all life, not just its happy hours.
----
You must also try this: Pick off one of the flowers, turn it upside down and pull on the two extreme petals. What you see then is a naked lady in a bathtub.

|

Distractions And Wolcott's Take on Cohen 



I went to James Wolcott's blog at the Vanity Fair to read what he had to say about Richard Cohen's column discussing why the media loves John McCain and never ever says anything nasty about him. This is what Wolcott had to say:

Really, it's a shame we even bother fussing over the looming troubles confronting this country when we could just let "character" be the seeing-eye dog that guides us. McCain's positions on abortion, Supreme Court picks, military action against Iraq, Social Security privatization?--mere trifles. "A presidential race is only incidentally about issues," Cohen informs us, thus reaffirming Bob Somerby's in Daily Howler that Beltway pundits are engaged in an epic bout of metacriticism, reviewing the novel that they themselves are writing, a cartoon travesty starring fictionalized versions of Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, et al that double as voodoo dolls. There's no intellectual floor to their petty maraudings. It's novels all the way down.

Which really means that the media loves McCain and in any case it's all opera criticism.

I'm sure I had something deeper and more insightful to say about all this before I counted the number of plump breasts in the Vanity Fair ads on the right side of the blog. Two naked women and a couple of half-dressed ones, with urgings to watch a slide show of them. No naked men for me at all. Not even one stray chest hair!

Of course I'm a hardened blogger who doesn't let such ads affect her. But it's fascinating to note what the magazine thinks might sell.

P.S. You might not get the same ads but the plump breasts seem to stick.

|

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Greetings From The Supreme Court 



Today's decisions included that question about whether death punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for the rape of a child, even if the child survives, and it is no wonder that the other decisions don't get as much coverage. But as Southern Beale points out, there was also a decision which favored Exxon-Mobil.




|

Some Very Odd Ads 



I keep getting that woman who blows up and slims down and blows up and slims down until I think I will puke any minute. Then the text says that you can slim down and boost libido with just one simple pill! But would that pill ever stop from blowing my body up and shrinking it down? I still feel dizzy from having it blink on that site.

Other odd ads: An advertisement for car insurance which consists of a dancing skeleton! I'd like some of what the creators of that ad were imbibing.

And the recent hiring ad for a site which connects you with workers. The ad shows lots of people scurrying to and fro, as they would be seen from above, at a very high distance. Which means that I thought the picture was about bugs and moths crawling and creeping and skittering, and my first reaction was to squash them flat.

Of course I may not be in the target group for those ads. But still.

|

Back To The Future in Abortion 



This story, arguing that a politician running on a pro-life agenda paid for his girlfriend's abortion and dropped her off at the clinic may or may not be true. But it reminded me of the many books and articles I have read about the world before Roe in the United States.

The rich could get safe abortions even then, though the safety wasn't always that much better than what a coat-hanger might provide. Still, if you had the money and the connections you could find a doctor who would perform the abortion either in the U.S. or abroad. It was the poor and the middle class women who had to resort to butchery either by themselves or by someone doing it on the kitchen tables.

What this means is that the illegality of abortion didn't mean that much for those in power, and the same would be true again in the world the pro-lifers plan. Even pro-life politicians could get their girlfriends or wives hush-hush abortions. It is the people without money and connections who would be forced to give birth. And that is already true, given the very unequal distribution of abortion resources within the country.

|

Weirdness 



Maureen Dowd got lots of complaints for her use of gender stereotypes and the way she bashes all Democrats all the time. (This is a funny take on that.) So now her newest column actually attacks a Republican. Wonders never cease. Though she still isn't depicting Karl Rove as a Norwegian Viking princess with a horned hat, a Victoria's Secret bra and a false red clown nose.

We probably have to give her more time to get used to the revolutionary idea that Republicans, too, have gender which can be mocked.

|

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Who Would Have Thought? 



That the Justice Department used political criteria (a no-no) to hire nonpartisan career attorneys, in particular in the civil rights division? Oh my, what shall we tell the children?

This:

Applications that contained what were seen as "leftist commentary" or "buzz words" like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general's office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.

Affiliation with the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative group, was viewed positively.

So nice to know that the hiring process was changed to insulate it from party-political considerations in 2007. Also nice to know that several additional reports on all this are in the pipeline.

|

Female Suicide Bombers 



Time has an article about a woman who decided to become a suicide bomber in Iraq after her brother turned into a "failed martyr" by having his bomb belt explode prematurely, without any innocent victims:

No one remembers Hasna Maryi ever opening her family's Koran. She rarely attended her village mosque and told others she regarded the Imam there as a lech. So it was not religious extremism that made this villager from Anbar province blow herself up at an Iraqi police checkpoint last summer, killing three officers and injuring at least 10 civilians.

Religion may not have been her motive, but Hasna was an early, willing casualty of the latest jihadi trend: the use of women on the frontlines of the Holy War. Although fewer than 30 of the nearly 1,000 suicide bombings since the end of the war have been attributed to women, American and Iraqi officials say jihadi groups are deploying female bombers far more frequently to slip past the heavy security cordons that are the backbone of the U.S. military's surge strategy. On Sunday, a female bomber killed 16 people and wounded at least 35 in Baquba. Just a few days before, two men and four women detonated a car bomb in a densely packed marketplace in northwest Baghdad, killing 63 people.

In every instance, female bombers have been able to get to their intended target despite multiple layers of security. In a culture that forbids male policemen or checkpoint guards from frisking women — yet also frowns on women joining the security forces — many have easy passage to high-value targets like police stations and markets. They can go unchecked where no man would dream of passing.

Suicide bombers may end their lives in the same way, but it would be foolish to draw any conclusions about their motivations from a single story. Still, how Hasna came to blow herself up sheds some light on the cycle of hopelessness some Iraqi women find themselves in.

According to this story, Hasna became a killer because her brother was one and she wanted to both complete his martyrdom and to follow him to Paradise. I'd argue that all of that is religiously motivated, even if indirectly. But the conclusion of the story is that she did it not for her religion but for a man, her brother in this case, and the unstated assumption is that her motives are something that male suicide bombers do not have. But I have read about female suicide bombers who stated their motives to be fanatically religious and I have read about male suicide bombers who turned into killers because of a death of someone they loved in the family. Sometimes the search for simple and clear-cut explanations is not that enlightening.

The article about Hasna's killing expedition ends like this:

The other video, shot by one of the men who drove her to the checkpoint, shows Hasna looking impassively out of the window until they approach Kilometer 5. Then she pulls a veil over her face and adjusts the belt around her waist before stepping out. One of the men in the car whispers, "God is great!" She doesn't respond or look back. As the car drives away, the video, shot through the rear window, shows her approaching the checkpoint. She is quickly obscured from view by the dust trail behind the car. Nearly a minute later there's a flash, a muffled boom and a column of black smoke. "God is great!" says the cameraman. "The stupid woman did it."

"The stupid woman did it." Is this something the cameraman might have said about any suicide bomber, with a change of "stupid woman" to "stupid man"? Or is the statement just a general expression of contempt towards women?

It's hard to say. But I think the article tries to explain why women would be willing to kill themselves for a movement which doesn't value them or respect them as human beings.


This story is in some ways quite typical of stories about violent women, stories which are a little like that old saw about news being not when a dog bites a man but when a man bites a dog. We all expect dogs to sometimes bite people, but we don't expect people to bite dogs. So the latter is interesting and newsworthy.

In the same way, a woman suicide bomber is newsworthy, because we don't expect women to be the perpetrators of violence but its victims. That the number of female suicide bombers is very small doesn't make them any less interesting, rather the reverse. We are not that interested in the minds of male suicide bombers, because the very idea is more familiar.

The whole treatment of gender and violence in studies and the media has a similar paradoxical flavor. On the one hand, we are blinded to the very gendered nature of violence to such an extent that Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, a book about popularized evolutionary psychology as an explanation of Everything didn't bother to even mention violence in the chapter about gender differences, and I didn't find a single published criticism of the book that mentioned that odd omission.

On the other hand, when women do commit violent acts the attention those get is enormous, and everybody wants to know what "made her do it." Sometimes the culture in which we live blinds us to the way gender is viewed: as something that only women have. That's why the gendered aspect of violence only becomes visible when women kill.

|

When Is A Compromise Not A Compromise? 



I'm scratching my divine head over the great victory Steny Hoyer has achieved by forcing the Republicans to compromise on the changes to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Security Act). Remember all the furor over the warrantless wiretapping of Americans, over massive data-mining operations and over the retroactive immunity promises to the telecoms who participated in that? It would seem logical to expect the compromises to be about those three topics, would it not?

Yet Glenn Greenwald quotes the right-wing organ, the Washington Times, as saying this about the Hoyer's compromise:

The most important benefit of the agreement is that it grants retroactive liability protection to telecommunications companies who responded to the federal government's request for emergency help after September 11. . . . The legislation, which would sunset in 2012, also ends the foolish practice of requiring judicial (or formal attorney-general) authorization to monitor communications between terrorists overseas if their calls are routed through a switch located in the United States.

So what was the compromise? Where is that great Hoyer victory?

The more I read about it, the more the great Hoyer victory seems to be over the Democrats. To quote the august Washington Times again:

If the House vote is any indication, political fallout from the legislation will unify Republicans and deeply divide the Democrats - not unlike the presidential primaries which just concluded. In the House, Republicans voted 188-1 in favor of the bill, while Democrats voted 128-105 against it. Left-wing blogs like Talking Points Memo and DailyKos are furious with members of the House Democratic leadership like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes and members of the Blue Dog Coalition for supporting the bill.

Ok. So the Democrats voted 128-105 against Hoyer's great compromise, but only one Republican didn't like the compromise? How extremely fascinating! Who is it that Hoyer was fighting here but his own party.

He managed to cave in to the Republican minority. Now, that's a great victory, indeed. Unless you like the Constitution and stuff.

|

Monday, June 23, 2008

George Carlin can go to feminist hell (by Suzie) 


for all I care. I know we're supposed to speak well of the dead. (Unless you're Bob Somerby talking about Tim Russert.) But the very fact that someone is down -- and DEAD -- makes it a lot easier to kick him. (I can't recall where I stole that joke; maybe it's from Carlin himself.) 
        Check out Carlin on the hilarity of rape jokes, including the idea that men commit rape because they're horny and can't get sex any other way. He also got laughs about “Eskimo rape,” before the recent publicity over the high rate of rape among indigenous women in Alaska.
       In his popular bit named "Feminist Blowjob," he say: "It doesn't take a lot of imagination to piss off feminists." He says we attack "fat-ass housewives." We attack men and yet act like men with our "pointless careerism." We are mostly white, middle-class women who "don't give a shit" about women of color. We blow stuff out of proportion, and we take ourselves too seriously. (Did I hear "Bingo"?)
        Like a lot of people, Carlin confused state censorship with individuals who prefer not to be maligned or misrepresented. He criticized feminists for wanting to control language and to tell people what to think. But he had strong opinions, and he used language in hopes of getting people to believe as he did. 

|

Republican Framing 101 



Karl Rove is teaching us all how it is done:

ABC News' Christianne Klein reports that at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club this morning, former White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as "coolly arrogant."

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy," Rove said, per Christianne Klein. "He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Rove's statement has nothing to do with the political skills of the candidates (Obama and McCain) and almost nothing to do with reality. McCain, for instance, is much, much wealthier than Obama. The "country club" reference is intended to evoke feelings of bitterness about the rich who go to such places, but of course African Americans have not traditionally been welcome in them at all. So Rove scores a double here in turning facts upside-down. It's McCain who would be a much better example of someone doing those things in a country club when he was younger: A military hero and all!

That whole statement is intended to provoke teenage feelings of resentment among those who hear or read it, to spread an odd veil of emotional envy towards Barack Obama, to poison the air with the ideas that it is he who is the elitist and not McCain even though McCain has considerably better qualifications for that role.

But of course all this is your typical Rove maneuvering: Take a fact and turn it completely back-to-front. Attack the strengths of the opposition and argue that they are the real weaknesses.

Because Obama's strength is partly that he is NOT in the ruling elite nor in the moneyed elite. If anything, he has the power of the outsider, and it is that power that Rove tries to destroy by his smears.

What Rove does is not that different from what Maureen Dowd does, every week in the New York Times: Encouraging people not to engage their thinking minds but instead decide on the world based on some very silly stereotypes and emotional grudges from past youth. This makes me very angry, because what is at stake is the real lives of people both in this country and elsewhere. Even their real deaths.



|

A Post On Subtitles. 



A Post on Subtitles. Explaining in Great Detail Why Such Are the Pits and Should Be Banned by Law.

The best reason is that they irritate me, anger me and make me want to scratch my spinal cord. Why did we suddenly fall back into the Victorian custom of providing book summaries in the form of subtitles? Why? I demand an answer.

The title of a book should be short and redolent of the main message of the book and the emotions it provokes. It should stick in your memory and make it easy to talk about the book. Subtitles don't do any of that. They are crutches, added to keep the wobbly main title on its drunken feet, and I resent that very much.

Subtitles are not that common on the covers of most books, but they sure are proliferating on the covers of books about politics. It's as if readers of political books are expected just to read the subtitle before they go on some pundit show to discuss the book (which they mostly appear not to have read). Or as if readers of political books are viewed as so stupid that the political bias of the book must be condensed into a suitable subtitle. (If you have never heard of the author, you can look at the back cover and check who it is that has been made to recommend the book. If the three names there are all conservatives then you have a conservative book. If the three names are all liberals then you have a liberal book. Or you can check out the publisher's ideological bias.)

Now that was fun. I like selfish rants on my own blog, especially when they do have a point, though I still want to write The Memoirs of Echidne. My Life As An Old Man And How To Stuff A Mushroom If You Must.

Anyway, what this post really is about (after that very long subtitle) is this:

Shelby Steele, author of A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win (Free Press, December 2007), acknowledged that he thinks Sen. Barack Obama "can definitely win" the presidential election, despite the claim in the book's subtitle -- "Why He Can't Win" -- which he said was an "afterthought" that he "regret[ted]" and which he said did not represent the book's thesis.

This silliness is of course all about the real reason for subtitles in political books: They are there to market the book, in this case to those who rather want to see Obama fail and wish to read something that supports that view.

|

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Liars Figure (by Phila) 

An article in New Scientist presents a startling new scientific finding: Researchers whose definition of male success involves carefree sex with lots of women have discovered that men who have carefree sex with lots of women are successful:
Nice guys knew it, now two studies have confirmed it: bad boys get the most girls. The finding may help explain why a nasty suite of antisocial personality traits known as the "dark triad" persists in the human population, despite their potentially grave cultural costs.

The traits are the self-obsession of narcissism; the impulsive, thrill-seeking and callous behaviour of psychopaths; and the deceitful and exploitative nature of Machiavellianism. At their extreme, these traits would be highly detrimental for life in traditional human societies. People with these personalities risk being shunned by others and shut out of relationships, leaving them without a mate, hungry and vulnerable to predators.
The phrase "traditional human societies" begs a few pointed questions. But we'll put them aside for now. Bigger and better things are afoot.
[B]eing just slightly evil could have an upside: a prolific sex life, says Peter Jonason at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. "We have some evidence that the three traits are really the same thing and may represent a successful evolutionary strategy."
That these complex traits are "really the same thing" is a fairly bold claim, and I'm not entirely surprised that Peter Jonason tries to support it by describing the behavior of a fictional character:
James Bond epitomises this set of traits, Jonason says. "He's clearly disagreeable, very extroverted and likes trying new things - killing people, new women." Just as Bond seduces woman after woman, people with dark triad traits may be more successful with a quantity-style or shotgun approach to reproduction, even if they don't stick around for parenting. "The strategy seems to have worked. We still have these traits," Jonason says.
We still have monastic celibacy, too, last time I checked. I don't find it puzzling that this "extreme" behavior hasn't become common in the general population. So why should I find it puzzling that not all men are promiscuous sociopaths?
"They still have to explain why it hasn't spread to everyone," says Matthew Keller of the University of Colorado in Boulder. "There must be some cost of the traits."
It's very heartening to think of the earnest debates that are being held as to whether a trait that is explicitly defined as narcissistic, callous, and exploitative -- that is explicitly defined, in other words, as antisocial -- might have some sort of social cost.

I've saved the best part for last:
Jonason and his colleagues subjected 200 college students to personality tests designed to rank them for each of the dark triad traits. They also asked about their attitudes to sexual relationships and about their sex lives, including how many partners they'd had and whether they were seeking brief affairs.
In other words, they asked male college students who scored high on a test for narcissistic and deceitful personality traits to report on their own sexual conquests, and took their answers at face value.

I'm no expert, but that really doesn't seem like a very good way to proceed.
|

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Women's films (by Suzie) 

   

         I swear I'm not on Jeanine Basinger's payroll. Since I just wrote about this renowned film scholar, however, I can't resist linking to this excellent story by her in Variety. She discusses the upcoming remake of "The Women" as part of the "female ensemble" subgenre. 
It's significant that a film starring a female, no matter what other genre it might be (comedy, romance, musical, crime, Western, film noir, melodrama), was always known as "a woman's film." There was no equivalent "man's film" category.
She concludes:
I look forward to a revival of the ensemble subgenre in which women aren't alike, can feel liberated to behave badly without consequence, can fight it out among themselves (why should the men have all the fun?) and can ultimately become friends and learn to work together.
|

Redefining Fidelity (by Phila) 

Maggie Gallagher takes yet another stab at explaining what's wrong with gay marriage. She comes to the odd conclusion that redefining marriage will lead to redefining fidelity, because unlike straight people, gays often choose not to be strictly monogamous.
But hey, if the word "marriage" can be redefined as a civil rights imperative, why balk at lesser ideas like "monogamy" or "fidelity"?
It's hard to understand how even the most promiscuous gay couple could "redefine" monogamy for the rest of us. Or for themselves, for that matter. The ideal exists for anyone who wishes to honor it, as it has despite centuries of lurid heterosexual vow-breaking. If Newt Gingrich and his priapic ilk can't destroy it through sanctimony, it's difficult to see how nonmonogamous gays could destroy it through honesty.

But the very difficulty of accepting this argument is what makes doing so imperative. If you simply throw up your hands and declare her rhetoric incomprehensible, teh gayz win.
War is not about killing your enemies; it's about crushing your enemies' will to fight. Guess what? Culture war is too.
She goes on to frighten us with the specter of mere anarchy, as other forms of legally sanctioned oppression are counted, weighed, and found wanting:
"Experts say organizations that receive state and federal funding will not be allowed to oppose working with gays for religious reasons," the Blade forthrightly reports.
Sounds about right to me. You can have your institutional bigotry, or you can have coffers filled with the tax dollars of people whom you consider to be third-class citizens, but you can't have both. In other words, you can be faithful to your ideals come what may, or you can whine that you should be able to have your cake and eat it too.

If you ask me, the fact that this frustrated opportunism constitutes a religious crisis in the eyes of conservatives like Gallagher is a much better example of declining moral standards than gay marriage.
|

Friday, June 20, 2008

Friday Critter Blogging 



This is a fascinating link to pictures of wild creatures. Check out the top picture on the right, about the turtle hatchling making its determined way to the sea.

And here is FeraLiberal's kitty, melting into the background:




|

Alienation and allies (by Suzie) 



          When Clinton endorsed Obama, I was in Little Rock, staying at the home of an Obama supporter. The relationship with my friend reminded me of one of the take-away messages from the Clinton campaign.
          Let me back up, and make it clear that I was a Clinton supporter. I guess that’s as surprising as Jodie Foster coming out as a lesbian. I held off making an explicit statement of support out of deference to the neutral Echidne, but she gave me permission to come out of the Clinton closet.
          I’ve followed the Clintons a long time. My oldest sister worked with Bill Clinton in the McGovern campaign. When Clinton was governor of Arkansas, I had summer internships at the newspaper in Hot Springs, where he grew up. I later worked for a newspaper in Little Rock.
         When Bill ran for the presidency, many of us liked Hillary even better. We had reveled in her feminism in Arkansas. My oldest sister, who has been a radical lesbian separatist for many years, relished voting for Hillary in her state’s primary.
          During my return to Little Rock, my Obama-backing friend graciously took me to the Clinton Presidential Library, and we found a middle ground by admiring the collection of state gifts.
          At times, I get lulled into thinking that this person or that, this group or another, shares my views and values. Then something brings me up short, reminding me that my friendships exist despite our many differences, and that politics consists of allies and coalitions.
         Although my friends were courteous and informed, I can identify with Joan Walsh, disillusioned by some people she thought she knew: “A writer whose work I respect submitted a piece addressed to ‘old white feminists,’ telling them to get out of Obama's way.”
         Tad Bartimus writes:
         Several friends I'd assumed shared my commitment to dignified gender equality turned into harsh Clinton bashers for the flimsiest of reasons. One rejected her because she was disappointed Hillary didn't divorce her husband after the Monica Lewinsky affair. Another was infatuated with Obama's rhetoric, though she admitted she didn't know much about his political platform. A third resented being lumped into a baby boomer female stereotype identified with Clinton's life experience.
         When a colleague of 30 years gleefully brandished her coffee table centerpiece -- a Hillary nutcracker with incisor-sharp teeth between its thighs -- I was embarrassed for this woman who'd claimed to be a lifelong feminist …
          I’ll vote for Obama because I greatly prefer his policies to McCain’s. And I’ll continue to look for ways to work with those who differ from me. I just wish it was easier sometimes.
----
         As a former journalist, I understand the concept of writing about news events in a timely fashion. As a blogger, however, I’m writing about things once I’ve thought them through a bit. That’s a weird concept, I know.

|

Let's change the nominating system (by Suzie) 



          Now that the hodgepodge of primaries and caucuses are over, I hope powerful people are thinking of ways to improve this system. I send this plea out to the universe, as one of the Florida halfpeople.
         The Tampa Tribune suggests
Election laws should set up a rational primary system, perhaps one with regional primaries and a rotating schedule that gives each region a turn going first.
         I'm open to other ideas. But let's do something before 2012.
|

The introspective media (by Suzie) 



       Many feminists, whether they supported Clinton or not, decried the media’s sexism during her campaign. But the New York Times reports that most journalists “see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward.”
        Hold the presses! Journalists think they did a good job! 
        That’s why I was surprised and pleased to hear Katie Couric say,
"One of the great lessons of [Clinton's] campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media. ... It isn't just Hillary Clinton who needs to learn a lesson from this primary season — it's all the people who crossed the line, and all the women and men who let them get away with it."
           (Watch the video here.)
           The alleged progressive Keith Olbermann named Couric the Worst Person in the World. I enjoyed Rachel Sklar's response. Meanwhile, Vanity Fair and others have reduced this issue to silly squabbling, ignoring Couric's main point. Others ignore the main point to leap to the defense of Lee Cowan, whom Couric criticized, without naming names, for his saying that it was hard for him to stay objective while covering Obama. I wish more journalists would admit that objectivity is impossible. Nevertheless, I side with Couric on this. A veteran journalist should be accustomed to throngs of excited supporters, whether attending a political event or a rock concert.
           In 2006, Susan Estrich wrote about someone saying America wasn't ready for its first "solo woman evening-news anchor."
           Now consider: if this is what Katie gets after three months, while she’s admittedly still finding her sea legs (if I can refer to them), just imagine, imagine what we’re in for with Hillary.
         If you don’t think her loss is your loss, think again.
              In other words, sexism hurts all women. (Once again, this doesn’t mean that you had to like or vote for Clinton. It means you need to avoid sexism when discussing her.)
              By the way, Couric made her recent comments at the Sewall-Belmont House, which I highly recommend visiting. This museum on Capitol Hill "is the headquarters of the historic National Woman's Party and was the Washington home of its founder and Equal Rights Amendment author Alice Paul." Couric received the 2008 Alice Award. Last month, Congress voted to award a gold medal to Paul posthumously.

|

Thursday, June 19, 2008

How Memes Are Created 



From Media Matters for America:

CNN's Gloria Borger asserted, "[Sen. John] McCain really believes that he has an opportunity to win over these suburban women who, in recent polls, have shown that they don't like [Sen.] Barack Obama very much." But of the two recent polls identified by Media Matters that reported results for the subcategory of suburban women, one found that Obama led McCain, while the other, providing results specifically for "white suburban women," gave McCain the lead, but reportedly within the margin of error; in neither case were results reported for likability of the two candidates among suburban women.

Moreover, the second poll actually says this:

In the head-to-head matchup, Obama leads McCain among African Americans (83-7 percent), Hispanics (62-28), women (52-33), Catholics (47-40), independents (41-36) and even blue-collar workers (47-42). Obama is also ahead among those who said they voted for Clinton in the Democratic primaries (61-19).

Yet among white men — who made up 36 percent of the electorate in the 2004 presidential election — Obama trails McCain by 20 points, 55-35 percent. "That is the reason why this election is close," Hart notes.

In addition, McCain leads Obama among white suburban women (44-38), group which makes up about 10 percent of all voters that Hart calls "absolutely critical" for both candidates in the fall.

However, Obama has a seven-point advantage (46-39) among all white women. How important is that lead? Newhouse explains that Republican candidates always expect to win white men by a substantial margin, but it is white women that usually decide the race. "If a Republican wins among white women, we usually win that election," he says, noting that George W. Bush carried that group in 2000 and 2004.

Did you read it? Did you notice how Obama seems to have a much bigger problem with white men who don't seem to like him that much? For instance, if white men liked him better then it wouldn't matter what suburban women think, now would it?

All that is meme manufacturing. The actual findings don't lend themselves to some particular spotlight on suburban women (the group which is most likely to vote Republican among all women). Indeed, a much more truthful portrayal of the findings would be to ask about white men (who tend to vote Republican) and their apparent dislike of Obama. But the new meme is all about bitter women, so that's what we get.

The proper meme is that lots of Republicans are planning to vote for McCain. Now, does that surprise you?

|

The Pregnancy Pact in Gloucester, Ma. 



A clarification:

This is what I read on 6/23/08:
"I am not able to confirm the existence of a pact," Mayor Carolyn Kirk said. "Any planned blood oath to become pregnant there is no evidence."

Time magazine last week reported a rumor, given credence in an interview with Gloucester High School principal Joseph Sullivan, that the girls, all under 16 years old, promised each other to become pregnant and raise their children together.

"Beyond the statement of the principal, we have no evidence there was a pact," the mayor said. "The principal could not remember who told him that."


And:
The mayor and school officials said the girls may have made an agreement to support each other after becoming pregnant, but that was not the same as creating a premeditated "pact" to become pregnant.

So there is no evidence of a pact about getting pregnant. Whether the 24-year old homeless man story is true or not is also unclear.

Yeah. Despite that caveat I entered in the original post, I sort of fell for the story, because it was in Time, with interviews with some of the students, because I woke up to a talk show about it, with experts and because I heard the reporter being interviewed about the interviews she had done. Nowhere did they say that all information came from the high school principal alone.

My apologies. Will try to do better in the future.
------


Time reports on schoolgirls getting pregnant on purpose, in a pact to bring up their children together. It's not possible to say whether any of that is true, of course, but you can judge for yourselves:

As summer vacation begins, 17 girls at Gloucester High School are expecting babies—more than four times the number of pregnancies the 1,200-student school had last year. Some adults dismissed the statistic as a blip. Others blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers. But principal Joseph Sullivan knows at least part of the reason there's been such a spike in teen pregnancies in this Massachusetts fishing town. School officials started looking into the matter as early as October after an unusual number of girls began filing into the school clinic to find out if they were pregnant. By May, several students had returned multiple times to get pregnancy tests, and on hearing the results, "some girls seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were," Sullivan says. All it took was a few simple questions before nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together. Then the story got worse. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy," the principal says, shaking his head.

The whole piece creates more questions than it answers. Is it really true that the school has made pregnancy too attractive an option? What would be the alternative, then? To shame pregnant girls into hiding and not going to school? And does nobody tell these girls what taking care of a child really means? And if they do, why don't the girls listen?

What do the pro-birth people think about all this? Now that's a real conundrum. I can imagine their eyes going all crooked in trying to decide whether this is good or bad.

But of course the saddest part of the story is a future looking so bleak to these girls that getting a baby seems like the best way to get unconditional love and a plan for something to do. The next saddest part is that they have been left adrift this way, without other plans or the healthy kind of self-love they need to wait until they actually do have the resources for a child.

|

Memories... 






When I first took up a keyboard for blogging purposes there were very few feminist blogs. Now they are many and the voices are powerful and diverse. That is a wonderful, wonderful change.

That poster has nothing to do with the topic of this post, except for the fact that the same fears still crop up about feminism. If they are not about women's suffrage they are about women in the military or about women as presidents. Any progress for women is interpreted as bad news for men and for children. Sigh. We will never have a female Pope.

|

Oil And Friends 



Sometimes reading the day's news causes interesting patterns. Take oil. The industrialized countries need oil, and some countries (such as Iraq) have it while others (such as Zimbabwe) do not. Oddly enough, having oil is closely correlated with which countries get their dictators removed and which countries are allowed to go to rot. No, I'm not saying that the Iraq occupation was only about oil, but staying in Iraq is definitely to do with oil. They have lots of it, and we want it, "we" being the West:

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

That "no-bid" part means that the fantastic free markets were not allowed to decide who would get in. Funny, that.

Spencer Ackerman notes an important aspect of this re-entry of the old oil lords into Iraq: They are going to need lots of private security:

Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security, exposing the companies to all the same logistical nightmares that have hampered previous attempts, often undertaken at huge cost, to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure.

So not only will we have unregulated foreign oil companies making money off endless occupation and proxy government, we're sure to have unregulated private security companies providing the muscle for them. This is the real Bush Doctrine.

Private security companies such as, say, Blackwater? Did you hear what Blackwater is doing about a court case in the United States by three widows of soldiers who died in a Blackwater plane crash in Afghanistan? You're going to like this:

To defend itself against a lawsuit by the widows of three American soldiers who died on one of its planes in Afghanistan, a sister company of the private military firm Blackwater has asked a federal court to decide the case using the Islamic law known as Shari'a.

The lawsuit "is governed by the law of Afghanistan," Presidential Airways argued in a Florida federal court. "Afghan law is largely religion-based and evidences a strong concern for ensuring moral responsibility, and deterring violations of obligations within its borders."

If the judge agrees, it would essentially end the lawsuit over a botched flight supporting the U.S. military. Shari'a law does not hold a company responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their work.

What makes this most interesting is the fact that Blackwater in Iraq isn't subject to the Iraqi legal system or the rules of the U.S. military. Such shadow military organizations have lots of advantages, it seems, and I started wondering if privatizing the military in this manner isn't the greatest innovation of this administration.

The Bush administration is certainly into privatizing everything (with the exception of women's bodies which are to be kept under public scrutiny). The idea of drilling for oil offshore here in the United States is back on Bush's to-do list. We have all those public lands and nature preserves and we are getting absolutely no profit out of them. So why not hand them over to oil companies? Couldn't that solve the Iraq problem, too? And the Republican problem of turning oil prices into a Democratic problem:

President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to end a federal ban on offshore oil drilling and open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, asserting that those steps and others would lower gasoline prices and "strengthen our national security."

In recent years, the president said, "scientists have developed innovative techniques to reach Anwar's oil with virtually no impact on the land or local wildlife," referring to the wildlife refuge by its acronym. He continued, "I urge members of Congress to allow this remote region to bring enormous benefits to the American people."

President Bush also urged Congress to approve the extraction of oil from shale on federal lands, something he said can be done far more economically now than a few years ago, and to speed the approval process for building new refineries.

Mr. Bush sought to take full political advantage of soaring fuel prices by portraying Republican lawmakers as imaginative and forward-looking and the Democratic majority in Congress as obstructionists on energy policy.

Imagine that! I must tip my hat for that guy's ability to do reversals, a trick I sometimes use when writing about gender. But he is wrong, because there isn't enough oil in all those fragile places to justify the plundering at the cost of doing it and the oil in the Middle East is still needed. Besides, he's not saying anything about what has caused the price of oil to rise so much. It certainly has not been those environmentalists protecting the spotted owl.

|

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Another Post About Why No Posts On The Iraq Occupation 



I often feel guilty about my silence on that topic. The silence is firmly founded on facts, however. The whole escapade is a clusterfuck. Once you swat a wasps' nest, the wasps come out and you can't just put them back, and interfering in the politics of a country without any real understanding of its history is very much like swatting a wasps' nest, without a backup plan about how to get the hell out of there.

In short, all avenues I can imagine are littered with bloody corpses, and the only workable solution is to pick the avenue with the fewest corpses, assuming that we can figure out which one that is.

And yes, women in Iraq have certainly not been liberated by the U.S. invasion, though many of them have been "liberated" from their husbands as there are now many, many widows there.

Sigh. I don't envy the U.S. administration which has the task of sorting it all out, assuming that the voters are wise enough to choose such an administration instead of one who wants to monger more war.

|

Congratulations To Donna Edwards 



She won a special election yesterday to become the first African-American woman from Maryland to serve in the U.S. Congress. What does that make the percentage of women in the Congress?

Her victory is good news, though.

|

A Rose By Any Other Name Smells Just As Sweet 






Or what's in a name? Like in women changing their name when getting married. A couple of posts on this very old feminist topic turned up yesterday.

Matthew Yglesias thinks changing your name at marriage doesn't make much sense. Imagine if you had to change it every time you change your job, to match the name of the new firm, for instance. That is funny, because Finnish last names were originally often the names of farms, so you actually did change your last name when you moved to a new farm. But most people didn't have last names at all; they were just Someone's Daughter or Someone's Son, the "Someone" always being a man, of course.

Atrios also thinks that keeping your maiden name at marriage is quite all right, and that the whole question of names is not really worth thinking about. Do what you want.

It is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things, certainly falling far below saving the environment and stopping all wars. But it's an interesting feminist topic to address, for all sorts of historical reasons.

First, the custom of women taking their husband's last name is not a universal one. The Chinese didn't do it, and in many countries people just didn't have last names at all. But where "family names" became the norm those names were always the names of the man's family. Thus, whenever two people married, the woman moved from her family into his, initially physically but later at least in the terms of the last name she adopted at that moment.

For example, Elizabeth Jones became Mrs. John Smith, with just one stroke of a pen on the wedding certificate, and Elizabeth Jones died, to all practical purposes. If you study genealogical records it can be very hard to find out who some "Mrs. John Smith" once was, you know, except for being the wife of John Smith. In a sense, this erases women from much of history.

My guess is that many second wave feminists focused on this topic for the reason that name changes do tend to "disappear" the women from written history, not to mention the obvious imbalance in always expecting her to move to his family group and never the other way around. But then other feminists point out that all the woman is doing is moving from one man's (the father's) family group to another man's (the husband's) family group. The only way around that problem is to pick a brand new family name and to start your own family group.

Except that this seldom happens. Even in the cases where a woman keeps her family name at marriage, even in that case the children mostly get the father's surname. Unless hyphenation is used. But that just reintroduces the problem for the next generation, because at some point there will be too many names to connect together.

I think that viewing the name from the angle of perpetuating a family is the most useful one, and then we are faced with the question of asking whose family it is that is being perpetuated. There are practical solutions to this. For instance, every other child could be given the father's last name, every other the mother's last name, and both parents could keep their own names.

If you find that unappealing it's probably because many feel that families should all share the same last name. The easiest feminist solution to that is to decree that for the next hundred years it will be the men who change their name at marriage and that all children will get the mother's last name. Imagine proposing that. I'm sure that many men would not like it at all. Even if names in general are trivial things, your name is not. Right?

At the same time, the custom of changing your name at marriage has been given a romantic halo by the history, by old movies and books where some poor girl from not-much family becomes a countess by capturing the count's heart. Also, sacrificing your name is part of that gift of love for many women, even today, and the drawbacks of it seem acceptable, especially if you didn't like your original family name that much to begin with. The best way to see those drawbacks is to contemplate that reversal I proposed in the penultimate paragraph.



|

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Should We Talk About This? 



This being McCain's comment about his wife in the past, the one where he supposedly called her a trollop and a cunt. Atrios links to a video (full of the word "cunt") which points out that the media is not discussing this comment even when discussing McCain's recent attempts to appeal to women voters. In comparison, Obama's "sweetie" comment was discussed fairly extensively.

The reason for the media silence on McCain's blunder may be in the difficulty of mentioning that word on television or on radio. Or in something else. I'm not sure.

There are hidden shoals in any attempt to exploit this against McCain. For one thing, it would require wide-spread use of the word "cunt", and such use attacks women, even if indirectly. Then there's the problem of exploiting McCain's statements as something party-dependent. All that's needed for that to crumble is that someone finds something similar expressed by a famous Democratic politician. Or more simply: It would sound as if women are asked to choose between being called "a sweetie" or "a cunt", and it would also trivialize the sexism as something only wingnuts are guilty of in this country.

I think McCain's votes are enough to nail him, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

|

On Grief and Pets 



Grieving for an old dog is an odd state to be in. It is like all grief, in the sense of being about a loss, about the daily sphere of energy being torn apart, about those ragged ends of feeling groping, groping and not finding what they used to. The reassurance of everyday is not there, the empty water bowl looks like a black hole in the floor. The best analogy to me is to think that suddenly there are rotten parts in the floorboards, in the stairs, doors that fall off their hinges, windows that suddenly crack, even though most of the time your life looks just the same as always. You never know when you step into something that gives, and so you must be careful, walk slowly, take care not to stumble.

It's like having to learn the world again. Every day the new world is more familiar, of course. But I still wake up feeling as if my outer shell has disappeared, feeling as if I have to defend myself against my own grief. That it is a dog I grieve for makes everything more complicated, because many think of dogs as not worthy of a human being's grief. Certainly not old dogs. The grief is seen as immature, ill-placed, a sign of something wrong in the griever. Thus, the grief must sometimes be hidden and not talked about.

But a grief for the death of an animal is not that different from the grief for the death of a person. It's all about those intricate webs of memory, love and dependency, and the webs have been cut through by that dark sickle of death. They must be mended, rewoven, repaired, and while that process happens one grieves.

|

Congratulations 



To Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon who after more than half a century were allowed to get married to each other. I hope the cake was double chocolate, of course, but only because I love chocolate.

|

Monday, June 16, 2008

From The Hair Pulling Files 






Transcript:

From the June 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Why do you think most women vote Democrat, Heidi? And have for years?

HARRIS: Most women? I don't know. I think women -- sadly, a lot of women are very emotional, and they tend to think with their hearts and not with their minds about some of these issues. They tend to feel more of these kind of things than think it through. I hate to say it, but it's true.

MATTHEWS: You mean it's not hard issues like abortion rights, or Social Security, or minimum wage?

HARRIS: You know --

MATTHEWS: Logical reasons?

HARRIS: You know what it is? I don't think, Chris, that most women under 50 care about abortion rights, and here's why. Because women at that age have -- Roe v. Wade was passed in '73, as you know. So all the women growing up -- my generation, the women 10, 15 years younger than I am, it's always been legal. I don't --

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

HARRIS: -- think that 30-year-old women have any concept of what it's like not to have that right. So whether you stand left or right on it, it doesn't really matter to most women, 'cause they can't conceive of it. And on the other hand --

MATTHEWS: Well should they have -- well, shouldn't they have a concept of it if the Supreme Court moves further right, and there is no more right to have an abortion?

HARRIS: I don't think it's going to change. I don't think -- no matter who's on the Supreme Court -- it's going to be overturned. And the women who are complaining about it the most are too darn old to get pregnant. So I don't think it's a big issue for young ones.

Ouch. My female heart is bleeding right now. Where did I leave that girl brain, I wonder? Probably in my makeup bag.

Ah! Here it is. Wait while I install it. (Sounds of girly flustering at the task of brain surgery.) Ok.

Note how Harris is creating a false dualism here: Women think with their hearts, and men? What do they think with? Heh.

The false part is the idea that men don't relate to emotional arguments at all, or to arguments which make greed ok or to arguments about kicking the butt of people in other countries. Another false part is to pretend that there is no intellectual reason for women to tend towards the Democratic Party platform. After all, women are, on average, poorer than men, more likely to be the unpaid caretakers whose jobs are made more difficult by the dog-eat-dog Republican view of the world and also more likely to belong to the group for which the Republican ideas of freedom do not apply at all.

But see how sexism can be invited to television, with cucumber sandwiches and tea? See how it's ok to say that women are unable to think about politics, that they are like a giant tribe of lemmings following some sob story in their voting behavior.



|

A Funny Video 



I've posted this before, I think, but it's a fun video to watch if you feel too serious and melancholic today.




|

From My Mailbag 



Hmm. This is a neat way of writing a post without actually writing it, if you know what I mean. On the other hand, it's also a format which goes well with topics that I think deserve more attention but on which I'm no expert, ma'am/sir.

For instance, you can learn more about how habeas corpus is being investigated, as a possible terrorist. Then you can read about what happened to Nitra Gipson when she had "too much" money vouchers at Wal-Mart. Or you can read more about how unreliable web site visitor numbers and such are when politics gets fierce, from Ptarmigan Nest. By the way, it's not advisable to "freep" Internet polls. Neither do those polls measure actual public opinion even without freeping, as they are not based on proper samples of the public.

And here's a real unicorn. I swear.




|

Bobby Jindal: Change The Wingnut Way 



The young Republican governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, has been suggested as one possible running mate for John McCain. He has many advantages: He is young, handsome, a man of color (of Indian origin) and he belongs to that ultra-Catholic group of which Scalia is the most famous example. Such people make the hearts of some fundamentalists clap louder. Megan McArdle of the Atlantic loves him so much:

Of course, I'm just in that first flush of puppy love, when a journalist meets a handsome young politician who just might be The One. Soon enough, I'll undoubtedly find things about him to hate. But frankly, it's rare enough to meet one I like. True love may have to wait.

There are women who always fall in love with men who are not good for them, sigh. Let me tell Megan more about Bobby Jindal:

Bobby Jindal has a 100% pro-life voting record according to the National Right to Life Committee.[22][23] He opposes abortion without exception.[24] However, he does not condemn medical procedures meant to save the life of a pregnant woman that would indirectly cause the termination of the pregnancy.[25][26] Jindal also supports the use of emergency contraception in the case of rape.[27] He opposes embryonic stem cell research[28] and voted against increasing federal funding to expand embryonic stem cell lines.[29]

To oppose abortion without exception means that there will be no abortion in the case of rape, say, or in the case of the woman's health being endangered.

He's also for the teaching of intelligent design in schools. How he would feel about supporting the anti-discrimination laws I do not know, but I recall reading a comment or two by him earlier which suggested that he is no friend of feminism.

More on Jindal:




|

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Happy Father's Day! 



First to all daddies and then to everyone else, too. Check out some of the daddy blogs today. This one is a good place to start. Or this one.

|

Forty Years From Now (by Phila) 

"Do you love me? Do you love me, Olympia? Say but that word. Do you love me?" Nathaniel whispered, but as she rose to her feet Olympia sighed only: "Ah, ah!"

"Yes, my glorious star of love." Nathaniel said, "you have arisen upon my heart and you will illumine and transfigure my heart always."

"Ah, ah!" Olympia repeated, moving away.


--E.T.A. Hoffman, "The Sandman" (1816)
Artificial-intelligence theorists are providing plenty of material, lately, for Glenn Reynolds' wet dreams:
Romantic human-robot relationships are no longer the stuff of science fiction -- researchers expect them to become reality within four decades.
I'm not sure why something that's expected "to become reality" within forty years wouldn't count as science fiction, but that brainteaser is child's play compared to what comes next.
"I am talking about loving relationships about 40 years from now," David Levy, author of the book "Love + sex with robots", told AFP at an international conference held last week at the University of Maastricht in the south-east of the country.

"... when there are robots that have also emotions, personality, consciousness. They can talk to you, they can make you laugh. They can ... say they love you just like a human would say 'I love you', and say it as though they mean it ....

"You want your robot to be able to talk to you about what is interesting to you."
Forty years may seem like an awfully long time to have to wait for a robotic sex partner whose avowals of undying love will strike you as plausible, and who'll be able to have intelligent -- but not too intelligent -- conversations about Atlas Shrugged when its amazingly life-like tongue isn't slathering your asshole with artificial saliva. For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain a horny robot with a bottomless appetite for his loudmouthed banalities, and lose his ability to get it up?

Don't be downhearted, though. You have to remember that the Singularity is Near. If Ray Kurzweil's modest dreams come true, the middle-aged among us will meet our robotic partners more than halfway by then, and should be able to indulge in downright Heinleinian bouts of redundant sex and speechifying. God willing, we'll finally force our entry into that Pornotopia whose proud minarets and moist cul-de-sacs Steven Marcus surveyed from afar:
All men in it are always and infinitely potent, all women fecundate with lust and flow inexhaustibly with sap or juice or both....
And even if the old flesh remains weak, these machines of loving grace can simply be programmed to react to the feeble fumblings and thrustings of 90-year-old transhumanists with volcanic exclamations out of Victorian porn ("Ah, my dear Mr. Reynolds! I have spent thrice, and am altogether vanquished! Please do be so good as to expound further upon Plessy vs. Ferguson, whilst I luxuriate a while in love's sweet lethargy.")

Whether you love this idea or hate it, you've gotta love it; there's no use standing in the way of Progress. This is the next stage of evolution, in which earlier patterns of domination, exploitation, and self-defeat will be naturalized and eternalized, and the messier and more disquieting aspects of "freedom" will be mitigated by a new race of sexually malleable beings that's happy just the way it is.

Long live the New Flesh!
|

Lands of Opportunity (by Phila) 

A couple of weeks ago, a 17-year-old undocumented worker named Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez died of heat stroke in a California vineyard.
When Vasquez Jimenez collapsed, she had been on the job three days, pruning vines for $8 an hour in a vineyard owned by West Coast Grape Farming.

During eight hours of work beginning at 6 a.m. in heat that topped 95 degrees, Bautista said that workers were given only one water break, at 10:30 a.m. And the water was a 10-minute walk away – too far, he said, to keep up with the crew and avoid being scolded.

Vasquez Jimenez collapsed at 3:30 p.m., Bautista said, and for at least five minutes, the foreman did nothing but stare at the couple while Bautista cradled her.
In San Diego, meanwhile, crossing the border has become a popular way to beat high gas prices:
The differential in diesel is even greater, selling at $5.04 a gallon in San Diego County and $2.20 in Tijuana.

Paul Covarrubias, 26, who lives in Chula Vista and works in construction in San Diego, crosses the border each week just to refuel his dual-cab Ford F-250 pickup.

"I fill it up with diesel in Tijuana for $60," he said. "It would be almost twice that in San Diego."

Gas is cheaper in Mexico because of a government subsidy intended to keep inflationary forces in check.
|

Welcome Phila! 



He's going to join the Snakepit Inc. when he feels like it. You may already know him as the provider of Hope Blogging on Fridays and those delectable nudibranches at his home blog Bouphonia.

Phila is wicked smart and wicked modest, as you will find out.

|

Howdy (by Phila) 



I have to say right off the bat that it's very daunting to be posting here. I've admired -- and envied -- Echidne's quiet, powerful voice for a long time, and I've also found her guest contributors and regular commenters to be frighteningly insightful and smart. My deep pleasure at being thought worthy of this privilege was immediately undercut by a deeper certainty that I'm not worthy of it, and am bound to let everybody down in the end. If not before.

That's just how I am, and it hasn't made things easy for me in some ways. On the other hand, when I contemplate the literally shameless antics of chattering husks like Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd, my inherent vice begins to seem almost like a virtue. Perhaps instead of apologizing for my "negative self-talk," I should wield it as the sceptre of my dominion over lesser beings.

Kneel before me, puny mortals! (Unless you'd rather not, which I can totally understand.)

Anyway, I have absolutely no idea what I'm going to write about here. Something, probably. My own blog is all over the map, and I have no desire to scatter my sour dust and clutter through Echidne's marbled halls. All I can say for certain is that I'll keep it fairly short and to the point. But don't hold me to that.

In the meantime, I wanted to express my basic agreement with, and appreciation for, the recently but not (let's hope) permanently departed Anthony McCarthy. His thinking has certainly influenced mine, and I think it's fair to say that mine has occasionally influenced his. While we have our disagreements, I definitely share his dour outlook on the interminable shouting-match between religion and atheism, and on certain anti-democratic tendencies, or capitulations, on the left. I don't mention this to announce my intention of picking up any specific burden he's dropped, now or later, but simply to honor his efforts, which I think were met with more hostility than they deserved.

Since I've got no particular place to go, I may as well follow this thread, and confess that my concerns here aren't entirely pragmatic. I'm generally respectful of religious thought, partly as a result of my conversion to the One True Faith of Echidneism, and partly because freedom of conscience is the foundation of what I'd call democratic politics, and partly because we've borrowed from religion the language we use to speak against injustice, and partly for a reason that I can best approach by speaking for a moment about feminism.

I wasn't raised to be a feminist, by any means. If anything, I was raised to be a hopeless romantic and a sentimentalist. As I grew older, I started noticing the undercurrent of brutality in this view of women (and of men, for that matter). Not, I'm sad to say, because my thinking was so elevated and nimble, but because I kept acting like an asshole, and feeling bad about it. And I eventually took an interest in figuring out what assumptions allowed me to act the way I did. Some of them were cultural, it seemed, and some of them were particular to my own psychological problems (which, in my own defense, I'd come by honestly). In the end, the only thing I knew for sure was that I'd be better off if I rooted out and discarded all of them.

Which was -- and is -- easier said than done. It means facing unpleasant facts, naturally, but it also means giving up comfort and power and privilege, and I think that tends to be a much bigger stumbling block for most people. As we all know, it's easy to embrace a theoretical feminism (or a theoretical liberalism, or a theoretical environmentalism, or a theoretical Christianity) while complacently conducting one's business as usual, in the lap of what we might as well call luxury. It's a bit harder to let go of power and privilege, and become deaf to their logic...especially since that logic tends to be embedded, if not embodied, in our art, fashion, and aesthetics (to say nothing of our science, religion, and politics). The ugliness of the Democratic primary underscored how hard it can be even for smart, well-meaning people to rise above the ugliness of this culture.

It's precisely here that religious thought (or what I consider to be worthy of that name) and atheist thought (ditto) ought to agree neatly with progressive thought, and help us to avoid running aground on these rocks. Each of them should remind us that we're responsible for ourselves and for each other, though not necessarily in that order, and that this responsibility isn't going to be fulfilled from on high by divine or technocratic magic, or wiped away by the Invisible Hand like crumbs from our common table.

Have I mentioned that I also admire Echidne for her lack of preachiness and pomposity? I hereby vow to keep mine under control while posting here. But don't hold me to that.

That's more than enough for now. Suffice it to say, again, that I'm grateful to Echidne for inviting me here, and that I look forward to converting all of you to the hopelessly muddled worldview of neo-Muggletonian libertarian socialism. By force, if necessary.

|

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Murder-suicides among the elderly (by Suzie) 

         

          A newspaper reports that Robert Benjo, 82, shot his wife, Peggy, 76, in Deltona, Fla., as she slept. Their doctor said the husband did it so that she would no longer suffer from cancer and Alzheimer’s. The doctor, the public defender and the family called it a mercy killing.
In December 2000, another Deltona man, Leo Visco, 81, was arrested when he shot his wife, Eva, in what was termed a "mercy killing." Although he was charged with first-degree murder after the homicide, he subsequently got a five-year suspended prison sentence and was placed on probation for 10 years.
          Without more facts, I can’t speak to these cases. But I do want thorough investigations when elderly men kill ailing wives.
         Donna Cohen, a professor at the Florida Mental Health Institute in Tampa, has researched murder and suicide in the elderly. From an article on her research:
           Of the hundreds of homicide-suicide deaths in the US each year, the rate amongst over 55s is twice that of under 55s. Homicide-suicides now account for about three per cent of all suicides, and about 12 per cent of homicides in the older population.
         “One of our most distressing findings is evidence that older women who are killed are not knowing or willing participants,” says Dr. Cohen. “Often they are killed in their sleep or shot in the back of the head or chest.”
           Her research indicates that about a third of elder homicide-suicides occur in a context of domestic violence, an ugly contrast to the Norman Rockwell image of loving clan matriarch and patriarch.
            Most elder homicide-suicides, however, have more to do with poor health. Often one or both partners are in failing health, and typically the husband is supporting a spouse who is chronically ill.
           “You’ve got men in long-lived marriages who have typically exercised a certain amount of control and they’re having to care for their wives,” says Dr. Cohen. “They’re very task oriented, and this inability to help the wife becomes an interpretation of failure.
            "A woman who is providing care is more apt to respond emotionally. They talk about it, share those kinds of thoughts.”
         I understand the frustrations of caregiving. I helped care for a father with Alzheimer’s and other illnesses while I underwent cancer treatment. I think assisted suicide should be legal, but we must be very, very, very careful.
          If there’s nothing in writing, it’s hard to interpret what someone might have wanted. People who are in pain or are distraught about their physical condition may talk about dying or say they don’t want to live in a certain fashion. But they would not necessarily answer “yes” if asked, “Would you like me to shoot you in your sleep?”
          Let me put this another way: Not everyone who talks about suicide, not everyone who says they hate their life, actually wants to die. For some, it’s another way of saying, “Please do something to help me.” When I came out of anesthesia after my first major operation, I was yelling, “Kill me! Kill me!” What I really meant was, “Quick, inject me with more painkiller!”
           Some people say they wouldn’t want to live with a chronic illness or disability, but after they become ill or disabled, they find ways to enjoy life.
          A brain tumor left my mother with dementia, but she was relatively happy. Her younger self wouldn’t have wanted to live like that. But her older, demented self? She liked the tiny blue flowers that grew by the lake, the dog that curled next to her as she slept, and a bagel with coffee.

|

The Translation Robot. (May Trigger.) 



Has been working very slowly. That's the only reason I can think for the slowness with which McCain canceled his fundraiser with Clayton Williams:

ABC's Rick Klein reports: Sen. John McCain on Friday abruptly cancelled a Monday fundraiser that had been scheduled at the home of a Texas oilman, after ABC News contacted the campaign inquiring about a verbal blunder the Texan made during an unsuccessful 1990 campaign for governor.

Clayton Williams stirred controversy during his 1990 campaign for governor of Texas with a botched attempt at humor in which he compared rape to weather. Within earshot of a reporter, Williams said: "As long as it's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it."

Other than not having a very well-developed sense of humor, Williams has all the correct wingnut opinions:

Williams told the Midland Reporter-Telegram recently that he had already raised more than $300,000 for McCain and the fundraiser to be held at his home in Midland. Williams said that he needed to help McCain raise money to stop an Obama campaign that would enact "socialist" policies if elected to office.

"Much of the media, particularly the TV media, are to the left," Williams told the newspaper. "To combat that we must have money to put our case to the people. We are way behind on [fundraising]. If Obama wins, it could move our country to the left, from which we will not recover."

And what do I mean by the translation robot being slow? Obviously someone had to tell McCain why that particular joke mattered enough to cancel the fundraiser.

There are all those onion layers to this little debacle, too. In one layer is a guy who made a stupid comment twenty years ago, and paying to much attention to that stupid comment seems stupid in itself. But in the next layer is the obvious fact that rape is nothing like the weather, that it's very hard to relax and enjoy that knife on your throat, for example, and to make jokes about this is very cruel. Then, deeper still, are the values of a society which have produced such jokes. And the fact that a robot is needed to translate that to politicians.

|

Friday, June 13, 2008

More Jeanine on Joss (by Suzie) 

        

         Please indulge me as I post my last tidbits from film scholar Jeanine Basinger’s speech on Joss Whedon. (See the post below for the first part.)
         Foreshadowing his later TV shows, Whedon put vampires in his first film at Wesleyan and later did two Westerns. The man who would write “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” wrote this about the female protagonist in “The Birds”: “She has to give up her superficial life with its controls and just fight.”
         Joss studied all the classics. Later, when he was famous, Basinger arranged lunch with Joan Leslie. “He has a crush on her. He is practically ecstatic, jumping up and down. Joan Leslie! Joan Leslie!”
         “Joss had very eclectic taste” as a student, Basinger said. For example, he later wrote her that he liked the values of “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure.” He liked Brian De Palma, but not “Masterpiece Theater” type movies, such as those made by Merchant-Ivory. “He didn’t like pretention … or anything cruel to teenagers. He’d fight to the death over those films.” She said later: “He gets really mad when he sees a movie that’s really stupid. He cares. … He takes it as a sacred responsibility to be a good storyteller.”
          Early on, she talked to someone about hiring Whedon and then warned him, “Joss, he’s going to kill you if you do anything wrong.” That night, Whedon dreamed she was chasing him with a knife. “This was my proudest moment as a teacher,” Basinger said, with the wry humor that colored her speech.
          In 1989, she got a letter from him in an envelope with a “Roseanne” logo. He had begun writing for that TV show. He described himself as a “television whore,” an “emotionally unstable” hermit whose hair was turning blond.
          “I’m making my way,” he concluded.
         Thirteen years ago, on June 24, Basinger attended his wedding to “a real warrior woman,” Kai Cole. Basinger danced with him. “We are fabulous and brilliant and should be on Broadway.”
          Although the “Buffy” movie greatly disappointed him, Basinger recognized his voice in lines such as: The Californian basketball coach tells his team, “Remember, you are a person. You are entitled to the ball.”
           Whedon called before the “Buffy” television series aired, saying, “It is my inevitable DNA that I’ll be doing a television series.” (He’s a third-generation TV writer.)
           “He was so excited.” He told Basinger: “Wait till you see the cast. I love these people. They’re so good. The only thing is that it will last only a few episodes and no one will see it.” He wanted to do the show his way, and he wanted Basinger to see it before it was yanked off the air. After the first episode, he asked her if she liked it, and she told him that she did. The show ran for seven seasons, and she always watched in real time. Her husband, an actor and teacher, commented: “ ‘Buffy’ is worthy of John Milton.”
           In the show, she could hear “his peculiar cadences, his wit, his aches and pains, his worries... I could feel his heart beat. I could feel his heart beat.”
          On her first visit to the Buffy set, she was scared on his behalf, the way she was when her daughter was learning to drive. She wanted to yell: “Watch out! This is a hard, tough business.” But she saw how proficient he was. “I’m so very proud of him.”
            She also loved “Firefly.” “It’s just fabulous.” But Fox executives pulled it before all 14 episodes aired. “If I could murder those people, I would.”
           Can't get enough? Check out Nikki Stafford's account.

|

Jeanine Basinger on Joss Whedon (by Suzie) 



          Before Jeanine Basinger spoke at Slayage, she called Joss Whedon to ask what she should not say. The list grew longer and longer.
           “I’m not going to have anything left to tell them,” she told him.
           But Basinger ended up with plenty to say about the creator of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Angel,” “Firefly” and “Serenity.” Basinger, a renowned author and film-studies professor at Wesleyan University, spoke Sunday at the Slayage Conference on the Whedonverses* 3 in Arkadelphia, Ark.
           After her speech, I asked about feminism. She said Whedon was a feminist before he became her student, and she credits his mother, who was a librarian and teacher. But she does think she influenced his ideas on feminism.
           Basinger, who is in her 70s, was among the first women to get tenure at Wesleyan. She teaches women that, if men take the camera from them, they can take it back. She said she practices with them, if need be.
           Basinger recalled the first time she saw someone wearing a T-shirt that read: “Joss is God.”
          “This makes me one of the mothers of God. I’m comfortable with that, but is he really God?” Another reaction: “Joss? My little Joss?” He ignores stuff like the T-shirt, but she feels “a little appalled” by his deification. In Hollywood, she has seen the wreckage that ego causes. She considers Whedon remarkable for never losing his humanity, his perspective, his basic personality.
          “Today, Joss is exactly the same person as when I taught him. He is wearing the exact same T-shirt. He is wearing the exact same sneakers.
          “Joss is a very sensitive person. He would describe himself as a lonely, nerd-type teenager.” Although he had outgrown that description by the time he got to Wesleyan, he still felt – and feels – protective of teenagers, she said. “Joss is youthful in spirit and body and mind. I don’t think he has waked up to the fact that he isn’t a teenager.”
           She met him in 1983 or ’84 when he asked permission to take a class. They had a long talk. “It’s a conversation that’s still going on,” she said, and it’s one of the most important in her life. The feeling is mutual. Whedon once said: “I’ve had two great teachers in my life. One was my mother, and the other was Jeanine.”
           Asked if Whedon might become a teacher someday, she said it’s possible. “Joss is an excellent teacher,” she said, noting how he works with young actors.
           As a student, he already understood so much. She thought: “It’s all in there. It’s waiting.”
           When he graduated, she came to this realization: “He’s the tribal storyteller. I think, deep inside, he knows that he’s the tribal storyteller and that will be his destiny. We never say this out loud. It would be too noisy.”
            When he’s not telling a story, he’s restless, she said. She imagines him in cave days, wearing burlap and telling stories to guys in furs. Sometimes they would feed him, and sometimes they would beat him with a stick. But he would never stop.
          Basinger gave interviews about him when he became well-known. Then she stopped, feeling uncomfortable talking about a friendship marked by “dignity, always dignity.”#
           What does Whedon think of scholars who study his work?
            “I think this falls under the ‘And, for God’s sakes, don’t tell them’ category." But, she told the audience, “I’m not finding you too scary … too crazy. I think he thinks you do what you do and he does what he does. He has talked to me about it, but I promised not to talk about it.”
            She said she’ll tell him that he should go to the next Slayage. I’m thrilled because Joss is G… , umm, someone I admire.

* That’s like “universes.”
#From “Singin’ in the Rain.” 

|

Thursday, June 12, 2008

What I'm Re-Reading Today 



Henry Fielding's Tom Jones. It takes some time to get into the language and spelling used in the book and to appreciate how recent the idea of novels was during the eighteenth century (though of course the genre of the novel is very old, starting from at least Lady Murasaki's The Tale of Genji). I enjoy parts of Tom Jones very much, while tend to race through others as if I was cramming for a college examination.

Is the book safe reading for a feminist, you might ask. Well, nothing is and everything is. But there are small glimpses of a pre-feminist awakenings in the book, if you dig hard enough. Absolutely no awakening about class and class privilege, though. Fielding expects his readers to agree that the upper classes indeed deserve better treatment because they are better people. He also takes it for granted that it's up to the poor lower class women to preserve their virtue against the unceasing attacks by the upper class twits, and should they fail in that they are Whores, to be sent to the workhouse, while nothing much happens to the squire who we might regard as guilty of rape.

Parts of the book are most excellently funny, though. For example, after Tom Jones has been injured:

She was proceeding in this manner, when the Surgeon entered the Room. The Lieutenant immediately asked how his patient did? But he resolved him only by saying, 'Better, I believe, than he would have been by this Time, if I had not been called; and even as it is, perhaps it would have been lucky if I could have been called sooner.' 'I hope, Sir,' said the Lieutenant, 'the Skull is not fractured.' 'Hum,' cries the Surgeon, 'Fractures are not always the most dangerous Symptoms. Contusions and Lacerations are often attended with worse Phaenomena, and with more fatal consequences than Fractures. People who know nothing of the Matter conclude, if the Skull is not fractured, all is well; whereas, I had rather see a Man's Skull broke all to pieces, than some Contusions I have met with.' 'I hope,' says the Lieutenant, 'there are no such symptoms here.' 'Symptoms,' answered the Surgeon, 'are not always regular or constant. I have known very unfavourable Symptoms in the Morning change to favourable ones at Noon, and return to unfavourable again at Night.

It goes on like that for a while, and I recognize the slippery eeliness of many experts in that speech. The Surgeon finally deserts the patient when he finds out that Tom Jones doesn't have much money. It's wonderful to contemplate which facts are clear-cut and which facts require a lot of hedging.

|

Anti-Feminism 101 



Sometimes a person turns on a flashlight and directs it to the back brains of anti-feminists. When this happens we get a learning moment. Yeah.

Here is one such moment:

On the June 11 broadcast of San Francisco radio station KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Program, host Lee Rodgers said: "[T]he historical voting records show that Democrats have, historically, enjoyed a huge advantage in women voters. Why is that?" Rodgers continued: "Well, some women may be offended by this, but here's another dose of reality. We have a lot of women in this country who get knocked up and they don't have a husband. In effect, the government becomes Daddy in terms of paying the bills. And that accounts -- that's not all of it, but that accounts for a large part of that vote."

Now to tease all the different strands of that comment-knot apart:

First is the idea that people only vote for certain policies because of narrowly selfish goals, not because of wider ideals which might or might not have consequences of the voter. So all women who vote for, say, improved parental leaves only do so because they plan to use such leaves in the future. This idea is the way many wingnuts view the government, as a treasure trove to be ransacked. We can see how it is done by looking at the last eight years.

Second is the view of women as it filters through many murky layers of patriarchal thinking: Women are supposed to make babies for men and men are supposed to give bed and board to those women in return. Nobody else is supposed to enter that trade. Because this is how things are, women who vote for a larger government must be doing so to replace the god-given and evolutionarily predestined role of men in their lives. The role of men as providers and leaders of families.

Third is that odd sentence "We have a lot of women in this country who get knocked up and they don't have a husband." Note the passive way pregnancy is expressed. Rodgers doesn't say that a lot of women in this country get impregnated by men who are not their husbands. That's not necessarily a better way of stating his message, but it shows the manipulation in the original message. The focus is kept on the hussies.

Fourth is the strengthening of the wingnut memes about the government as a Daddy or as a Mommy, though it's not done right. Usually the wingnuts see the best government as a stern and punishing daddy, one who will whup you if you don't do your homework or clean your room. The bad government, in that conservative lexicon, is the government as a permissive mommy, one who gives you more pocket-money and tidies up your room behind the daddy's back. Rodger makes the daddy government something different. Perhaps it's a divorced daddy, turned into nothing but a pocket-book.

Fifth, is the total lack of evidence that the women who vote for Democrats are any more likely to be in the fertile stages of their lives than the women who vote for Republicans.

And so on.

|

I'm A Low-Hanging Fruit 



I've been puttering around, humming that to myself today. It was Chris Matthews who gave me that new way of seeing myself when he said that women, politically speaking, are low-hanging fruits for Obama. All he needs to say that he's pro-choice and McCain is not, and, presto!, the election is in his bag.

Of course, the discussion about white men doesn't call them low-hanging fruits though that would seem more descriptive, actually. Nope, they need much more persuading to vote for Obama rather than McCain. They need a "palpably patriotic" VP for Obama. Are we all supposed to go and palpate that person, the way we might test melons for ripeness? Not sure.

This, my sweet readers, is the status of public commentary on American politics.

|

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

I Can't Believe This One 



Fox News has called Michelle Obama Barack's "baby mama" in that text which runs at the bottom of the television screen. I did a search of the term and found these definitions of the term:

Peruse these definitions from UrbanDictionary.com:

* “The mother of your child(ren), whom you did not marry and with whom you are not currently involved.”
* “Basically a woman you had a child or children with who you didn’t marry and are no longer involved with. Usually associated with hoodrats and trailer park b***hes.”
* “Like herpes, it won’t go away!!!!!”

Clearly the guys who thought of these definitions don’t think of the term “baby mama” as a compliment. They consider it a slur, as derogatory a term for women as ‘ho, the B-word and chickenhead. And no, you don’t want to know UrbanDictionary.com’s definition of chickenhead. But I’m sure a song extolling the glory of being one is on some singer or rapper’s must-do list.

Perhaps the usage has changed since 2005, the date of that article? But I doubt it.

So what do we have here? The anticipated mix of racism and sexism. The hint that Michelle and Barack are not legally married, that theirs is not a "real" family.

Joan Walsh of the Salon expects that Fox News will apologize. I expect nothing from them, to be quite honest, but if they are allowed not to apologize I will make a spell that gives everybody piles.

|

Oh no! Not Webb 



Many on the lefty blogs really like Webb as Obama's VP candidate. I think choosing him would be a major disaster, for several reasons, but especially because of what he once wrote about women in the military:

[Women's] presence at institutions dedicated to the preparation of men for combat command is poisoning that preparation. By attempting to sexually sterilize the Naval Academy environment in the name of equality, this country has sterilized the whole process of combat leadership training, and our military forces are doomed to suffer the consequences. … [T]he system has been objectified and neutered to the point it can no longer develop or measure leadership. …

He also wrote this:

Military leaders are at best passive and at most often downright fearful when confronted by activists who allege that their culture is inherently oppressive toward females and that full assimilation of women depends only on a change in the mind-set of its misogynist leaders.

Webb has had many opportunities to clarify or to explain his views but he has not bothered. And this means that having him as the VP candidate would be very much like spitting in the eyes of all those women who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. It would be a political gaffe of the highest order, because it would indicate that it's really true that the guy politicians are completely blind and deaf when it comes to what makes the female voters tick.

|

Henrietta the Hound. 1992-2008. RIP 












What a beautiful dog she was, and intelligent. The dog with the most beautiful eyes in the whole world, the fiercest bark. She ran like the wind and you awed and ahed, and then she changed gears, got lower to the ground, overtook the wind and bit the clouds in the butt. When you look up to the sky and see someone biting a cloud in the butt, that's my Henrietta.

I miss her.

|

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Save the snakes (by Suzie) 

      

      In St. Petersburg, Fla., PETA is protesting the skinning of snakes and other reptiles for clothing and accessories. Once again, it's using women's bodies to make the point. A woman in underwear, painted like a snake, is lying on the sidewalk with her arms at her side. 
      One of the inane people who left comments on a newspaper's Web site suggested PETA paint an overweight woman gray to publicize the plight of the manatees. How very clever, except PETA prefers its naked female protesters to be slim and conventionally attractive.
       But, hey, I'm all for saving the snakes.

|

Are We Equal When 



Women can be openly misogynist, too? It's a question well worth thinking about. Consider our main representative among prestigious political pundits: Maureen Dowd:

A Media Matters for America review of Maureen Dowd's New York Times columns between January 1, 2007, and June 8, 2008, reveals that Dowd has frequently characterized this election cycle's leading Democratic candidates -- Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) -- using gendered language, specifically characterizing Clinton as masculine, and Obama and Edwards as feminine. For example, Dowd wrote on March 3, 2007: "If Hillary is in touch with her masculine side, Barry [Obama] is in touch with his feminine side." On June 4, Dowd asserted: "Barry [Obama] has been trying to shake off Hillary and pivot for quite a long time now, but she has managed to keep her teeth in his ankle and raise serious doubts about his potency. ... Hillary's camp radiated the message that Obama was a sucker who had played by the rules on Florida and Michigan, and then reached an appeasing compromise, and that such a weak sister could never handle Putin or I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket." Besides characterizing Clinton as masculine, Dowd often portrays the New York senator and former first lady as domineering, having called her "Mommie Dearest" and "Mistress Hillary. Dowd also often compares Obama to a child, calling him "boy wonder" and "the Chicago kid." By contrast, Dowd rarely feminized the all-male Republican field, and, during the period Media Matters reviewed, has never feminized Sen. John McCain, whom she has referred to in one column as a "tough guy[]."

My usual reaction is to feel sorry for women who suffer from such immense self-loathing. But I actually doubt that Dowd loathes herself. It's the idea of femininity that she loathes, the idea of all that "womanhood", that enormous mass of weakness, moistness, vulnerability, scatter-brainedness, cattiness, stupidity, or whatever characteristics the popular culture has assigned to women over her lifetime.

Those messages are there still and they were there much more strongly a few decades ago. It's almost as if most young girls of Dowd's generation got a nice wholesome glass of cold misogynistic milk most days of their childhoods. No wonder that many of them accept the societal misogyny without really stopping to think that it applies to themselves, too. You don't get a pass just because you think you do. You don't get a pass even if your misogyny is all about your mother or those catty girls in your high-school or that woman who stole your sweetheart or those bitches at work. Other people will still apply that same misogyny to you.

Perhaps that is the first step into feminist class awareness, the awareness that if you are female you will often be treated according to the cultural rules which apply to that "womanhood", whether those cultural rules are fair or not and whether they reflect the kind of person you actually are.

|

The Song Of Many Voices 



In a science-fiction or fantasy book, possibly by Sheri Tepper, a planet has an indigenous sentient species which tells its history by singing. One person might start a song about an event, but then another one joins in, adding details or counterarguments. This causes an amended duet, which is then changed by a third person singing, a fourth one joining in and so on, until at last the story is told so that everyone has had their say in the telling.

Doing that wouldn't be possible in, say, American politics, simply because the song would take too long. It would probably never end, given political pressure groups and advertising. But the basic idea has something in it which I miss, especially after spending so much time recently on reading stories which only tell one side. Or stories which present only some evidence.

I don't really like that. If a case I present is strong enough I should be able to discuss all the evidence, even the one that works against my arguments, and I should be able to explain why that evidence is either wrong or counts less than the other evidence which supports my conclusions. Reality is hardly ever clear-cut, few policies are all bad or good and nuances are important to address. But then one is boring, not passionate enough, so boring.

Still, as long as the opposition doesn't tell the whole story it's hard to see how we could, without coming across as appeasers. Heh. A double-irony there, given that we are supposed to be appeasers in one of those one-sided and biased tellings.

It's also loads more fun to write sharply and passionately and with one single story line weaving through the piece, getting stronger paragraph by paragraph. It's probably also more fun to read that than the kind of academic treatise one easily ends up with when writing nuance. Just as it's more interesting to read about some new and effective treatment for an illness than to read about the new treatment not being any better than the old ones. But the latter kind of knowledge is important, too.

So yes, I miss the song of many voices in politics. It doesn't have to be a harmony and it certainly doesn't have to end in some state in which everybody holds hands and agrees. It's more complicated and richer than the melodies (he-said-he-said) most press gives us these days.

Could it be done on blogs? I'm not sure. The maximum desirable length of a blog post appears to be shrinking all the time.

|

Yes, We Have No Tomatoes Today 



Because tomatoes these days might give you salmonella. What with the recent spinach scare and the scare about pet food from China and on and on, it's hard not marvel at the inventiveness of the unregulated markets in these fields. We get so much at such a low price! Too bad that we get some things we don't want, because the incentive to keep costs low also opens up interesting avenues for saving a cent off there, a penny off here, by replacing safe but expensive ingredients with something cheaper or by not taking certain hygienic precautions which cost time and money.

It's all fun and games, in the manner of markets with incomplete information. Consumers can't check tomatoes for salmonella bacteria or pet food or medications for possibly poisonous substances. Well, they could if each consumer bought a small home laboratory and learned how to use it. But that's a very expensive way of guaranteeing safety in the food and medicine markets.

What's cheaper, then? Perhaps it just might be that old bugbear: government regulation. Even the Bush administration now seems to think so. Otherwise it would be hard to know why suddenly the idea of getting rid of FDA workers and labs has lost its lustre:

Two days after announcing a large-scale recall of raw tomatoes, the Bush administration asked Congress on Monday to give the Food and Drug Administration an additional $275 million in next year's budget to help improve the safety of the nation's food supply.

"I would like to once again strongly urge Congress to act quickly to enhance the safety of food and medical products," said Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt in an evening conference call with reporters.

With the added money, the F.D.A. would open offices in China, India and Central America and provide more inspections of food and medical products, Mr. Leavitt said. The agency would also hire another 490 people in addition to hires the agency already planned.

"We'll be able to expand the total workforce by 1,500 people, or 15 percent growth," the food and drug commissioner, Andrew C. von Eschenbach, said.

This is a 180 degree turn from positions this administration took just a few years ago. Remarkable.

Perhaps a tomato salad to celebrate?



|

Monday, June 09, 2008

The Terrorist Fist Jab 



It's a silly, silly thing, having to do with a right-wing television person's reaction to this picture of the Obamas:





Here's where the "terrorist fist jab" enters the game:

Teasing a segment on the "gesture everyone seems to interpret differently," Fox News' E.D. Hill said: "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? ... We'll show you some interesting body communication and find out what it really says." In the ensuing discussion with a "body language expert," Hill referred to the "Michelle and Barack Obama fist bump or fist pound," but at no point did she explain her earlier reference to "a terrorist fist jab."

See how the memes are being forwarded? In any case, that gesture, whatever it might be, has been used by George The Elder (from Phillybits via Eschaton):





Much ado about nothing, but also a way to forward that idea of Obama as a Manchurian candidate. In any case, anyone who has done boxing might point out that those are not jabs.

|

Even More On Health Insurance 



Recently I suffered a week or so of nightly migraines. When I was thinking about going to see a doctor (because of the sudden increased frequency) I got really scared, and the scariness was not the idea that I might have a brain tumor (though that thought passed my pained mind, too): It was the fear that nothing unusual was found to be wrong but that I'd be left with such enormous bills for all the tests and the reading of those tests and the rent of the rooms in which those tests are performed that I couldn't cope with my other financial obligations over this summer.

And yes, I do have insurance, and yes, I'm not among the poor. But the prices of health care services run in thousands, not in hundreds, where I live, and the insurance always seems to reserve the right to decide that I wasn't, after all, insured for this or that specific example, not to mention the covering of only "customary and usual charges", as opposed to the actual charges being made.

All this means that I don't feel insured. It may well be the case that all of those costs would have been covered by the insurer. That I don't trust that is because of my past experiences.

But the fundamental point of insurance is the idea of turning the risk of a large expense into a known but much smaller expense. The more we tinker with the system to change that the less insured, more unsafe, people feel.

|

On Mandates in Health Insurance 



Barack Obama's health insurance proposal includes mandates for children, meaning that all children must have health insurance, but no mandates for adults. The reason why the latter are missing is probably that people don't like the idea of the government telling them what to do. The seat belt debate a decade ago went along those lines, too: Why should the government be able to determine if I buckle up inside my own car?

I can sympathize with that. But there's an intricate problem in any health insurance proposal which includes these two things:
a) no individual mandates
b) no denying insurance based on pre-existing conditions

Can you figure out the problem? Yup. A rational calculation will suggest to a young and healthy individual that it's ok not buy insurance. You can always buy it when you get sick. That way you save lots of money.

If enough healthy individuals think like that, what will happen? There will be less money in the insurance pool and more of the people covered by that pool will be spending it. All this makes it much more likely that the whole plan will fail.
----
Added later: Of course Obama's plan is a zillion times better than McCain's plan which is to go on doing what we have been doing to get into this mess in the first place. But should the Congress ever somehow gather the courage to actually try to do something about getting universal health insurance for all Americans that problem about mandates on the one hand and the pre-existing condition on the other must be addressed.



|

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Open Yer Eyes 



Digby has this to say about the sexism of the primary campaign:

Clinton's campaign ripped open a hole in our culture and forced us to look inside. And what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny that a lot of us knew existed but didn't realize was still so socially acceptable that it could be broadcast on national television and garner nary a complaint from anybody but a few internet scolds like me. It was eye-opening, to say the least.

Eye-opening? Well, not for me. But then I have the stench radar set on a very sensitive level, after all these years of feminaziing. In fact, I could probably give you a pretty predictive list of various public people who don't really care much for women (except perhaps in the sense they care about a nice chicken dinner), and that list includes some people others don't seem to see in that light at all. Yet. But nope, I'm not posting that list, because I'm an Ethical Blogger. Well, semi-ethical, given that I hinted at its existence.

Or perhaps just a quarter-ethical, because I often assume the role of a naive onlooker in my posts. In a sense I AM that naive onlooker, a little pink alien creature just arrived on this earth and truly astonished by the stuff I see. But in another sense I'm weary and cynical. So some of that stance is assumed, not real. But the real stance would get us nowhere, and in any case it, too, is only half-real. (See where weekend posting gets me?)

To return to the topic of sexism in this primary campaign, Howard Dean made a statement about it. Late, true, but at least he made one. Here it is:

Even the Democratic National Committee chairman is avidly trying to make up for accusations that he allowed sexism in the race to pass unchallenged.

"The wounds of sexism need to be the subject of a national discussion," the chairman, Howard Dean, said in an interview. "Many of the most prominent people on TV behaved like middle schoolers" toward Mrs. Clinton.

Now we are gonna have a national discussion of the wounds of sexism? Is Keith Olbermann going to give one of his angry Specials on it? Hee. I'm looking forward to that one.

And what would he say? Hmm. Perhaps something about demon Hillary cheating and exploiting bitter old white women who are too stupid to see that they are being cheated and exploited?

That was really unfair of me, because I put one the common sexist/ageist memes in various blog comments into Keith's mouth. I'm sure he would do nothing of the sort, nevah.

More seriously, it has been fascinating to see the specific forms of misogyny that this campaign has sprouted, most commonly the idea of women who supported Hillary Clinton as old and bitter. Because if they weren't old and bitter they wouldn't have supported her. It's easy.

What will be much harder to explain away is the next stage of misogyny in the presidential campaigning. It will be directed towards the wives of the candidates, and at least in the case of Michelle Obama it will be a mixture of racism and sexism.

My policy has been not to write about the family members of politicians, as long as they have no public roles themselves. This is because I believe that even the families of politicians deserve their privacy, and also because attacks against the spouse or children of a politician are indirect attacks against him (it's mostly "him"), based on the assumption that he "owns" his wife and his children. That goes against my feminist thinking.

But I think I may have to suspend that policy, at least until the elections are over.

|

Don't Call It Rape 



This is rather startling:

It's the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her.

She was raped.

But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word "rape" in front of a jury. The term "sexual assault" also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word "assailant" to describe the man who allegedly raped her.

The defendant's presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumps Bowen's right of free speech, said the Lincoln, Neb., judge who issued the order.


...

"There's no law anywhere that allows courts to issue these kinds of orders against private citizens," Murphy said. "That doesn't mean judges aren't doing it."

Prosecutors may object, but rarely do they have the time and resources to stop a trial midstream to appeal, she said.

But in cases where the defendant's version of events is pitted against that of the alleged victim, "words are really important," Marquis said.

"To force a victim to say, 'when the defendant and I had sexual intercourse' is just absurd," he said.

Let me see if I got this right: If someone mugs you and steals your rings and bracelets you are supposed to call the mugging "an exchange of jewelry"? Because otherwise you are prejudicing the case against the accused? Why is "avoiding prejudicing the case" equal to presenting only the case of the defense?

|

Saturday, June 07, 2008

Hillary Clinton's Speech 



Here is the transcript.














Hecate went to the speech and has stories to tell.
----
The videos stolen from Eschaton.

|

Food For Feminist Thought 



Linda Hirshman has written a thought-provoking piece on feminism and the recent primary fights. A snippet:

So what keeps the movement from realizing its demographic potential? First, it's divided along lines so old that they feel like geological faults. Long before this campaign highlighted the divides of race, class and age, feminism was divided by race, class and age. As early as 1973, some black feminists formed a National Black Feminist Organization; in 1984, the writer Alice Walker coined the term "womanism" to distinguish black women's liberation from feminism, the white version. In the early 1970s, writer and activist Barbara Ehrenreich argued on behalf of "socialist feminism," saying that the women's movement couldn't succeed unless it attacked capitalism. The movement was barely out of its teens when Walker's daughter, Rebecca, announced a new wave to distinguish her generation's feminism from the already divided feminisms of the people who had spawned it.

This would have been enough to weaken the movement. But it still could have been like many other reform movements, which manage to remain effective by using such traditional political tools as alliances and compromises. There's an old-fashioned term for it -- "log-rolling." Put crudely: First I vote for your issue, then you vote for mine.

The mostly white, middle-class feminist organizations could have established relationships of mutual convenience with groups such as the black feminists. An alliance like that might have been able to prevent the confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991. White feminists opposed him, but he had enough support among black voters -- who are heavily female -- to induce four Southern Democratic senators who were heavily dependent on black votes for reelection to cast the crucial votes to confirm him.

But feminists weren't going to do things the old-fashioned, "political" way. Instead, faced with criticism that the movement was too white and middle-class, many influential feminist thinkers conceded that issues affecting mostly white middle-class women -- such as the corporate glass ceiling or the high cost of day care -- should not significantly concern the feminist movement. Particularly in academic circles, only issues that invoked the "intersectionality" of many overlapping oppressions were deemed worthy. Moreover, that concern must include the whole weight of those oppressions. In other words, since racism hurts black women, feminists must fight not only racist misogyny but racism in any form; not only rape as an instrument of war, but war itself. The National Organization for Women (NOW) eventually amended its mission statement to include interrelated oppressions.

Although other organizations work on women's issues when appropriate, none of the other social movements were much interested in making intersectionality their mission. The nation's oldest civil rights organization, the NAACP, which co-sponsored the 2004 march in alliance with women's groups, says nothing about feminism or homophobia or intersectionality in its mission statement. The largest Hispanic rights organization, National Council of La Raza, unembarrassedly proclaims that it "works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans."

I don't know if this description is true or not, though I suspect that it might be somewhat exaggerated as Hirshman likes to provoke us into thinking and arguing. Or so I interpret the style she uses. But she makes a point worth discussing in that last paragraph: What is the best use of scarce feminist resources? Is it duplicating work already done by other organizations, especially if those organizations don't reciprocate by focusing on women's issues in return? Is work duplicated in reality? And if it is, how come are the other organizations allowed a free pass, so to speak, on the way they work for women (or don't)? And what could be done about it?

The whole piece is interesting to read, whether you agree or disagree with Hirshman's arguments. Are feminists really divided so clearly along the lines she describes: age, race and class? Are the waves of feminism really so different in their understanding of what constitutes feminism?

I want to leave this post full of questions for you to think about. But I'm already feverishly thinking about some of these issues in terms of my own feminist definitions, about horizontal and vertical equity, about the onion layers of feminism and about which layers we want to work on, about how someone who wasn't part of any of the waves in person might see them and so on. I think we need to go deeper in the onion, to strip off the layers one by one, not to discard them, but to investigate each of them on our way to the core. That probably doesn't make any sense right now, but I think that the way I write about feminism is more in the world of concepts and theories and less in the world of how they ultimately crop up and interact with other phenomena. Is that bad or good or indifferent? Or even true?

Then there's the whole problem of the class "women" being part of so many other classes, defined by race, income, class, religion, ethnicity, so many ties of solidarity of shared experience, of shared oppressions in some cases, too. How does that all play out in defining feminism?



|

Friday, June 06, 2008

Just add women and stir? (by Suzie) 



           (Keep reading and I’ll get to the controversial part.)
           The idea that we can’t “just add women and stir” has been credited to feminist theorist Charlotte Bunch in 1987. Since then, many feminists have picked up this phrase, with different permutations.
           A common idea is that someone writing a textbook on art, for example, could not simply add the names of female artists and think that she has covered gender in art. Instead, the author would have to look at ways in which female artists worked differently than men, how they were perceived differently, etc. The author might have to rethink concepts, such as: What makes an artist great? Here’s how this might work in regard to peace activism. Here’s an example from geography.
          Similarly, it’s not enough to add women to systems that are dominated by men and revolve around men. You have to examine the system itself from a gendered perspective and change accordingly. Here’s a reference from philanthropy. A nonprofit might find that it wasn’t sufficient to open a training class to women. It might need to offer childcare because women are more likely to be the primary caregivers of children. For the same reason, the nonprofit might find that children were more likely to benefit if resources were given to women instead of men in some communities.
          Along those lines … when some feminists say, “You can’t just add women and stir,” they mean that hiring, promoting, electing or otherwise adding women to fields that have been dominated by men does not guarantee that other women will be helped or that the system will change.
         Sandra Harding writes about science and technology (S&T):
          One major approach to dealing with women’s concerns has been to try to “add women” to S&T educational programs and workplaces and, sometimes, as beneficiaries of S&T products in such areas as health maintenance and domestic work. Such efforts are extremely valuable and far too scarce. Principles of social justice require that women, as well as men, gain access to the benefits of S&T development. Moreover, because women tend to be more alert to the distinctive needs and aspirations of women and their dependents in every generation, they try to get these addressed whenever they have the opportunity. Thus, women educate men as individuals and in their roles as community leaders, policymakers, and administrators about those parts of human needs and aspirations that appear primarily in women’s worlds. Furthermore, access to S&T work can often bring women together in public settings in ways that enlarge women’s consciousness of their role in social relations and empower them as community representatives (Collins 1991). For these reasons, even greater efforts should be made to increase the participation of women.
           However, it was clear from the beginning that such additive projects made unrealistic predictions about the likelihood of gaining equality for women, or even of achieving significant improvements in women’s situations, through such strategies alone. “Adding women” to S&T development has all too often meant adding a few elite women to the high-prestige areas of S&T — a Nobel Prize here, a university appointment there — and otherwise recruiting women’s labour for low-skilled and low-paying jobs to benefit their families, their employers, local governments, consumers in the North, and multinational corporations, but not women themselves. It quickly became apparent that merely “adding women” to existing S&T development projects would not advance either women’s situations or sustainable human development. The S&T sites that women entered remained structured by the understandings and interests of men, for women had been excluded from their design and management.
          Last year, blogger Freewomyn criticized Kathleen Rogers of the Earth Day Network for saying “that if more women were in leadership positions, we would have a solution to the environmental crisis.” She cited Condoleezza Rice as a woman who would not provide the necessary leadership on global warming. “Let’s just way that it’s going to take more than a woman in the White House to save the planet.”
         This week, Laura Flanders said we shouldn't have to elect women to get gender justice (among other things). 
           I agree. But doesn't gender justice include having women in government? I think putting more women into positions of power will improve society, if only because it opens up opportunities for women. It’s odd that this concept seems to have become controversial among feminists.
           I would much rather have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state than a white man who shared the same views. Her promotion may inspire girls, especially black girls. Having the career she does may make it easier for white men in power to imagine another black woman in that job.
          I understand that it isn’t enough to add only a few token women. But it’s a start. We don’t get parity overnight. It starts with a few women, followed by a few more women, followed by a few more. I think women are more likely to change systems if we can get a foothold in them.
         I'm writing this before I go on vacation, and so, I don't know the latest in the presidential race. But I have been mystified by progressive women who say gender doesn’t or shouldn’t matter when choosing a candidate. I guess this means that they have no problem with men holding the presidency forever as long as the men have good policies. The same goes for race.
         I’m not saying gender or race should be the only things that matter. If you think Obama would significantly improve the lives of women, or the lives of some women, or your life, and Clinton wouldn’t have done so, I understand your vote. If you think it’s important to have an African American in the White House and you like Obama’s policies, I understand your vote. (Mix these thoughts up however you want.) But if you’re a feminist and you say that the gender or race of a candidate doesn’t matter, then I’m floored.

|

On Becoming A Woman 






Blinky the Tree Frog found a fascinating 1950's book full of advice on how to become a woman. The writer, one Harold Shryock, M.A, M.D, obviously had lots of first-hand experience on the trials and tribulations of womanhood. Fascinating that becoming a woman seemed to require a handbook, because everything the book suggests is pretty much assumed to be automatic by today's conservatives and anti-feminists, whether of the religious type or the evolutionary psychology type.

Anyway, you really should read the excerpts Blinky has so kindly provided us. They start here, continue here and here.

There you will learn that "becoming a woman" means becoming an obedient helpmate for a man, one who is good at housekeeping and who keeps the gate in sex so that he doesn't have to restrain himself at all. A woman also knows that her goal in life is to become his housewife, but she should still get some quickly-acquired job qualification so that she can work before the marriage and perhaps later if needed. Of course such qualifications never bring much of a salary...

It's a fascinating trip into the sexual politics of the past, you might say. On the other hand, almost everything in those excerpts is advocated in this country somewhere, right this very moment. Abstinence is the responsibility of girls, for example. Women gentle and home-directed while men are strong and outer-directed? I was just told this by a liberal guy.

And then there is this wonderful excerpt on sex and why it should be women who provide blow jobs for men and not the other way round, really:





Apply that concept to the porn market and the whole idea of what constitutes sex these days. It holds up astonishingly well.
----
Link thanks to upyernoz.

|

I’m at the Slayage Conference on the Whedonverses (by Suzie) 



listening to papers on topics such as “Myth, Metaphor, Morality and Monsters: How Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Other Works by Joss Whedon Changed Ethical Thought Forever.” I look forward to hearing scholars such as Jeanine Basinger of Wesleyan. I can’t respond to comments. Please don’t torture Echidne too much for anything that I have written.

Slayage link.

|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 


    FeraLiberal is not the only one whose cats question the world with their tails. (See previous post.) Here's my cat Boots, now waiting for me across the Rainbow Bridge. Or, perhaps, her tail was questioning the existence of the Rainbow Bridge. Anyway, I miss her.
|

Thursday, June 05, 2008

It's My Cup! 



Don't you think so?
----
hat tip to Kenosha Kid

|

Granny President, Conservative Style 



Cal Thomas, a conservative columnist, writes about what a conservative Madam President for this country might look like. He's extremely funny:

A major problem for those wishing more conservative women would run for national office is the smaller pool from which to draw candidates. Large numbers of conservative women adhere to the "family values" they preach. Many prefer the company of family members to that of politicians. It isn't that they don't have drive, vision, or care less about their country than liberal women; it is that their fulfillment comes at a different level and they are paid in a different currency.

You see, Cal needs to explain to us very carefully that it's only the women who are expected to actually live "family values". Conservative guys don't have to do that. They are not scarce in that pool of candidates. Every rock I throw there hits one of them. But the ladies, now. That's a different story, innit? Well, someone has to live those "family values", right?

In short, conservatives believe in gendered division of labor, one in which the women get paid in a different currency altogether (though, sadly, there is no exchange rate between that and the U.S. dollar).

They also don't believe that women should wear pantsuits. By the way, I never thought to use that term in feminist writing, never. But reference to Hillary Clinton's "pantsuits" have become so ubiquitous as insults on the liberal blogs that I realized I have totally missed the feminazi implications of women wearing pants. It's like we are back in the era before Coco Chanel made the idea of women wearing trousers chic. Anyway, Cal doesn't like pantsuits:

What would a female conservative presidential candidate look like? First, she wouldn't wear pantsuits - except when climbing into helicopters. She would wear St. John (note to male readers: look it up; women are impressed I know this). Her husband would be mostly in the background, like Denis Thatcher. Unlike Bill Clinton, who can never leave the stage, this conservative woman's husband would be secure enough in his own skin to allow his wife to promote her beliefs unencumbered by him.

And how does the shadow husband get around the awful (awful) problem Maureen Dowd pointed out the other day: getting emasculated by his too powerful spouse? Thomas doesn't tell us. That only he would wear pants in that family seems to be enough.

I'm trying to imagine this Madam President and all I get is a flickering picture of Margaret Thatcher. I bet that's what Cal got, too. But Margaret Thatcher never fitted the "family values" stuff at all, and I'm sure Thomas knows it. So he ends up suggesting that a conservative woman president would be like a very stern grandma, one who would rap all the guys on the knuckles if they misbehaved.

Family values, indeed.

|

Well Worth Reading 



Is this post by Shakespeare's Sister on the misogyny in the primaries, if you want to understand why many women have been hurt by the campaign, including women who never supported Hillary Clinton at all. I know that I was hurt when I saw Bill Kristol chuckling so companionably with the other guy pundits inside my television set over the problem that is white women, for example, and it wasn't because Bill was being a Big Meanie. It was because I suddenly realized that the "woman problem" for these guys really is something to guffaw about. Women are hilarious! Though of course not as comedians but as the butt of the jokes.

Remember when Mike Barnicle told us that Hillary Clinton reminds all men of their ex-wives at the probate court? That was funny, too! So many memories of laughing pundits! And that Hillary Nutcracker? And the C.U.N.T. t-shirt? Smart marketing moves and so funny, because you have to think for a second or two before you get that the joke is not really about Hillary but about women.

Why did this revelation (that us wimmenfolk are cute when we're unintentionally funny) affect me so? Because I realized that women are just not taken seriously. Would you laugh at the first realistic presidential candidate of an ethnic group which is still banned from combat roles in the military, still banned from being priests in the Catholic Church, still overrepresented among the poor and the low earners? But you laugh at women, or at least the pundits do.

Now, none of this is a defense of Hillary Clinton's campaign which was badly run or a defense of her policies or her campaign statements, some of which came across as racist. Neither is it an argument that she lost because of sexism. And it is certainly not an attempt to ignore the nasty racism in this campaign or to compare the two.

But I'm wondering why I have unearthed misogyny (or something at least equal to contempt towards women) under so many stones, yes, even under liberal-looking stones. Is this just part of the campaign battle, part of using every possible weapon in the arsenal? Or is the cause of gender equality really something of a joke to many?

|

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

What Price Virginity? 



This legal case from France is interesting:

The bride said she was a virgin. When her new husband discovered that was a lie, he went to court to annul the marriage -- and a French judge agreed.

The ruling ending the Muslim couple's union has stunned France and raised concerns the country's much-cherished secular values are losing ground to religious traditions from its fast-growing immigrant communities.

The decision also exposed the silent shame borne by some Muslim women who transgress long-held religious dictates demanding proof of virginity on the wedding night.

In its ruling, the court concluded the woman had misrepresented herself as a virgin and that, in this particular marriage, virginity was a prerequisite.

But in treating the case as a breach of contract, the ruling was decried by critics who said it undermined decades of progress in women's rights. Marriage, they said, was reduced to the status of a commercial transaction in which women could be discarded by husbands claiming to have discovered hidden defects in them.

The court decision "is a real fatwa against the emancipation and liberty of women. We are returning to the past," said Urban Affairs Minister Fadela Amara, the daughter of immigrants from Muslim North Africa, using the Arabic term for a religious decree.

The outcry has been unrelenting since word of the April 1 decision in the closed-door trial in Lille was made public last week by the daily newspaper Liberation. In its judgment, the tribunal said the 2006 marriage had been ended based on "an error in the essential qualities" of the bride, "who had presented herself as single and chaste."

My title is slightly misleading, as the price is the annulment of the marriage not for virginity, but for lying about it. Sort of like misleading advertising about the product you sell. Or brides are seen as selling, I guess.

What's also interesting is that while most everyone dislikes the case, it may have trouble being appealed as neither of the original parties want to appeal it. Whether that means the case becomes a precedent for all French couples I do not know.

The wider questions it raises are interesting and somewhat troubling.

|

Why Vote For Obama? 



There's a meme going around about some who supported Clinton now threatening to vote for McCain rather than for Obama. I'm almost 100% convinced that the number of people who would do that is vanishingly small and that the megaphone this story is getting on the net has to do with something else altogether. Perhaps Republicans are spreading the meme? Or most likely it's those among the Democrats who just don't want to put this wonderfully bloody and bruising primary fight to bed. Either way, pursuing that avenue is not unifying, useful or healing, to either anyone who might contemplate voting for McCain for such reasons or for anyone who likes to contemplate someone doing that.

Did you notice that I wrote that whole paragraph without specifying the gender of those Clinton supporters? Have you noticed that this is not usually the case in the stories based on this meme?

The common way of approaching this topic is to imply that it is female voters who are considering this dastardly deed of no party faithfulness, not male voters. I'm not sure if research backs up that generalization? Perhaps it does.

Well, Scott Lemieux tells why women and feminists should vote for Obama:

But even when it comes to women's rights, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The enforcement of civil rights protections for women is likely to be much less in a Republican administration, for example. The global gag order will remain firmly in place. And in general, four more years of a tax-cut-supporting, massive-defense-spending GOP president will not only make any kind of serious progressive reform (much of which disproportionately benefits women even if not specifically targeted to do so) virtually impossible for four more years but will also make it more difficult in the future. A McCain presidency would be very, very bad for women even if not a single Supreme Court vacancy opens up during his tenure.

I agree with Scott. You don't want to jump out of the frying pan of these last eight years into the fire of yet another Republican Reich, so to speak. But I think his post could have been delayed a little longer.

Why? Because the Democratic Primary was truly a historic one, a sign of how far the nation has come. Dreams were being pursued in that race! And either outcome would have been spine-tinglingly exciting for many -- if not most -- Americans.

But once the winner has been declared some dreams will remain dreams and those who held the dream of seeing the first woman president of the United States must now get used to the idea that it will take a while longer, perhaps even a whole lot longer. Yes, it's possible to feel exhilarated about the nomination of Barack Obama and what it means for this country, while at the same time feeling sad about what it does not mean. Acknowledging that loss seems important, too, while also celebrating the history-changing event that Obama's nomination is.

But Scott is certainly right in his recommendations. McCain does not have women's best interest in his policy platform. Rather, women's rights are what he serves to his fundie base as exchange for votes.

|

Gee. What an Honor! 



I think feminists are being nicely demonized in this new Maureen Dowd lunatic rant:

But even as Obama was trying to savor, Hillary was refusing to sever. Ignoring the attempts of Obama and his surrogates to graciously say how "extraordinary" she was as they showed her the exit, she and a self-pitying Bill continued to pull focus. Outside Baruch College, where she was to speak, her fierce feminist supporters screamed "Denver! Denver! Denver!"

Bolding is mine. What did you take away from that piece? That there are no fierce feminists supporting Barack Obama? Katha Pollitt doesn't count? Eve Ensler doesn't count? Barbara Ehrenreich doesn't count? Amanda Marcotte doesn't count? Ann Friedman doesn't count? All those women and men who are feminists and who have worked for Obama's campaign don't count?

Of course Maureen Dowd is not a feminist herself. Her inability to see anything wrong with this sentence shows it very clearly:

For months, Hillary has been trying to emasculate Obama with the sort of words and themes she has chosen, stirring up feminist anger by promoting the idea that the men were unfairly taking it away from the women, and covering up her own campaign mistakes with cries of sexism. Even his ability to finally clinch the historic nomination did not stop her in that pursuit. She did not bat her eyelashes at him and proclaim him Rhett Butler instead of Ashley Wilkes.

Poor, poor Maureen. Feminism is all about emasculating men, wearing those pink gelding scissors at your belt, as all fashion magazines dictate. And politics is really nothing but retelling Gone With The Wind.

Perhaps this is the pearl in Dowd's latest outcry:

Either way, by broadcasting that she's open to being Obama's running mate, she puts public pressure on him similar to the sort of pressure Walter Mondale was under from rampaging feminists when he put Geraldine Ferraro on the ticket. Mondale ended up seeming henpecked, as Obama would seem if he caved to the women who say they will write in Hillary's name or vote for anti-choice McCain before they'd vote for Obama.

Now the feminists are rampaging. Earlier they were just screaming and fierce. And then they henpecked poor Walter Mondale. The way to look manly is by locking all your women up and by not letting them ever get close enough to men with those gelding scissors. Sigh. Of course Dowd herself emasculates every single male columnist by coming across so fierce and rampaging, and her next column should really be about how she should not be allowed to do that as it will cause the sales of Viagra among pundits to skyrocket.

Why am I writing about poor and deluded Maureen Dowd? Because her thesis encapsulates much of what I read every day: a certain kind of trivialization of feminism as unimportant, as having to do with shrieking women of a particularly illogical kind. Every day I read jokes about too many women crying sexism the way we usually say that someone cries wolf. Every day I see the threshold get lowered on what is acceptable to say about sexism as just another fun move.

No doubt something similar will be done to racism in the near future, to the detriment of all of us. But I don't think people on the left think of racism as something only shrieking or rampaging people oppose, or as something that's kind of fun to crack jokes about.

|

Maya Lin 



I'm not terribly well read in the field of sculpture, but her work strikes me as quite path-breaking, as something appealing our most human feelings, and not only because touch is encouraged. When I first visited the Vietnam War Wall I cried, and I know no-one buried there. It was that remarkable combination of monumentalism and privacy, that ability to search for one name, to copy it, to touch it, to spend time with the memory of that person, and at the same time to realize the enormity of the losses, the gigantic wall in front of you standing as a grim reminder.

I think she is a genius.

That's the prelude. Then the meat of the post: Is she being treated as a genius? Is she getting the accolades and the following geniuses usually get? Has she been declared a national treasure? Has she been invited to be a member on all the important boards, an expert in all important competitions?

Perhaps. But I suspect that she would be getting much more attention if her name wasn't Maya but Matthew Lin.

Now try to talk me out of that opinion, please.

|

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Barack Obama, the Next President of the United States 



I certainly hope that he will be and not John McCain. This country needs fixing, not further destruction, and we can all help Obama to do the necessary fixing while also reminding him of the issues that are important to us.

|

Is It Over? 



Asks Echidne from under her bed, and the question is about the melt-down within the liberal blogosphere between those who support Obama and those who support Clinton.

It has certainly been a learning experience for me, something that has made me accept very humbly that my understanding of the human psyche is altogether deficient, that my optimism about the importance of thought and debate is vastly inflated and that human beings are excellent in seeing the mote in their neighbor's eye while ignoring the humongous beam sticking out of their own eye socket.

Or perhaps I'm just too cold and reptile-like to really appreciate what kinds of feelings have been first flared and then wounded in all the zillions of blog fights I have followed. I was never in love with any musicians, either.

Still. To have someone who you have debated with and joked with and argued with turn into a pod-person who can only scan your comments for signs of infidelity to their chosen leader is upsetting, to say the least, and to observe how blogs turned into all-Clinton or all-Obama in less than a nanosecond is really confusing.

Or maybe not. Maybe we are all offered a lesson about how battle lines are drawn, what really energizes and motivates people, and maybe we are all also going to learn how to become friends again. I hope so, anyway.

|

F.U. Or: A Short Essay On Fuck You. 






F.U., F.U., F.U! Did that make you feel better? Oops! I forgot you're not the one writing it but the one reading it. Perhaps I should start again?

The use of foul language is common on lefty blogs, and the point of using it is ultimately political. Thers explained it best a few days ago:

Conservative bloggers have speculated that my use of "fuck" indicates that I possess an impoverished vocabulary, a thesis that I reject as pretty fucking stupid and in fact rather cromulent. Actually, I curse online as a conscious choice. Back in the early days of blogs I used to go into comments sections and try to, you know, persuade conservatives that, like, the proposed invasion of Iraq was perhaps not such a great idea. And what happened was, after a colloquy that sometimes lasted literally weeks at a time, what resulted was my interlocutor politely informing me that we would "agree to disagree" and that he (almost always "he") had quite enjoyed "breaking a lance" with me and that he fully expected me to join hands with him and sing a solemn hymn to Comity and then we'd go light a candle upon the altar of Civilized Discourse.

And, privately, I was thinking to myself, this is fucking insane. A lot of people are going to die for no rational reason, and here we are acting like we're all hot fucking shit because we don't say "fuck."

And you know what I did next?

I started to say "fuck" quite a lot, and I began to tell the people who were deliberately fucking up my country and causing a lot of fucking pointless carnage that they were a bunch of fucking horrible sociopaths and that I fucking hated them.

And it's been clear fucking sailing ever since.

I fucking applaud that fucking explanation, I do. It's certainly very true that something is fucking wrong with our value rankings when we think saying "fuck" is worse than killing people in other countries or worse than politely suggesting stringing them all up here at home, and the latter are the types of writings I have read on some conservative blogs.

But (and none of what comes after this is intended to refer to Thers, as he's not guilty of any of it and, as I said, I totally agree with the point he was making). The extensive use of foul language also has problems.

One of the worst for me is that so much foul language consists of the liberal use of words "cunt", "bitch" and "slut", whether applied in the original meaning to hate on women or whether used in the new enlightened sense of gender-blind cuntery, bitchiness or sluttery. All your enemies can now be cunts! Even men! This means that we can use those words freely and be all for legal abortions. Yeah.

But the words still drag their old misogynistic messages with them. Nothing can be done about that, you know, and so women reading these blogs get frequent reminders of their ultimate stinkiness. It's unpleasant, like someone's claws continuously scraping at your lower back or your inner arms. Even if you go to the doctor and get told that this condition is nothing to worry about, that "cunt" doesn't mean "you" nowadays, the scraping still goes on.

Sometimes I suspect that there are bloggers and commentators who have no idea that girls might be reading political blogs, that they might in fact be reading the very words you write right at this minute! Now that is a scary thought! Can you still suggest that a politician "throws like a girl" or "bawls like a twelve-year old girl"? Aargh!

It is not just girls who read political blogs, but some in the audience are not accustomed to swearwords so liberally applied. The effect is similar to that curry which a friend of mine once made from a scribbled recipe sent by his mother. The writing was hard to interpret so all the spices ended up being multiplied by a rough factor of ten. Hot it was, and our kidneys complained loudly.

Since this post is all about bad analogies, let me finish with a perfume one. Using foul language a lot has the same risk as getting used to splashing your favorite perfume on every morning. Over time your nose grows numb and you can't smell that alluring scent unless you spritz a few more times. But then the people in the elevator with you drop like flies after a Raid attack.

That's one reason why I don't employ the fuck-family very often. Another one is that they are very powerful people and I want to save that power for the times it is really needed.

|

Monday, June 02, 2008

Misogyny is Funny 



If you belong to the majority in this country by being female you might be just a little bit ready to kill someone when you watch what is regarded as acceptable entertainment on Fox:





What is funny is a guy who says all women are shallow, materialistic and whiners. He can smile like a wolf while doing this and because of the extreme misogyny he embodies Bill "The Falafel" O'Reilly comes across as almost reasonable. And the one poor woman brought into the conversation (where she is labeled as shallow, materialistic and a whiner) is expected to laugh at the silliness of women, too. He, he, he. How very hilarious.

We swim in it, sisters and brothers. And I'm not describing what "it" is in any great detail on this family blog.
----
If you want to feel the same dizziness I did, note that I read the above Media Matters piece right after reading about the repatriation of all the children who were taken away from the polygamous sect in Texas, and the article mentioned this:

The order signed by Walther requires the parents to stay in Texas, to attend parenting classes and to allow the children to be examined as part of any ongoing child abuse investigation. It also requires that parents allow state workers to make unannounced visits to the families and that they notify the state if they plan to travel more than 100 miles from their homes.

But it does not put restrictions on the children's fathers, require that polygamy be renounced or that parents live away from the Yearning For Zion Ranch.

Perhaps some women (and men) don't whine enough. Perhaps there is something in the substance in which we swim so that girls and women are held to different standards, a lesser power, a greater silence?

And yes, thank you for asking, I'm fucking angry today.


|

From My Mailbag 



Wouldn't it be fun if I had an actual mailbag, brought to me every morning on the back of a boa constrictor? It would have to have golden tassels with little bells in the four corners and it would always include gifts of chocolate (which I would eat right away), jewelry (which I would sell right away) and brain food.

Now I sadly only get the brain food. And attempts to infect me with malware. Such are the rewards of feminist blogging.

Speaking of my mailbag (I did mention that, didn't I? I didn't spell it malebag?), Violet Socks is having a fund drive because she needs to get new equipment for blogging purposes. Her blog, The Reclusive Leftist, is worth supporting.

A researcher wants to hear the stories of women who have had an abortion in Iowa and who had financial trouble affording it. If you can help, go here.

And a piece wonders where all the women go who start in sciences but end up...where? I wonder how much is lost in that leakage of the pipeline, too, not only by the women themselves but the whole economy.

Three things mentioned. That's good, to go by the rule of three. I have to resort to such mechanical rules because of that dratted flower which ejaculates pollen outside my window thus causing my breathing pipelines to block up. A brain full of pollen might look pretty but efficient it aint.

|

The Tinsley Report 



Or rather, an article by Cathy Tinsley in yesterday's Washington Post says something quite interesting about women in management jobs, something that Michael Gurian's simplistic and over-generalizing theories (see Suzie's post below) completely miss: Women and men are not read the same by others:

In a series of studies involving hundreds of participants since 2005, my colleagues and I have found systematic social and financial backlash against even mildly assertive female executives. In one study, for example, people judged the behavior of a hypothetical human resources manager (alternately male or female) negotiating for a refund on unused hotel space. Female managers were judged as significantly more offensive, and less likely to receive any refund, than male managers, even though all managers engaged in exactly the same behavior. In later studies in which human resources managers asked for a refund, displaying mildly assertive behavior, the behavior was routinely judged appropriate when displayed by a man but offensive when displayed by a woman.

In another set of experiments, a finance director (again, alternately a man or a woman) had to choose between attending to a work crisis (an information technology system crash) or a family emergency (a sick child). When the finance director was female and chose to stay at work, she was seen as competent but unlikable. When the female finance director went home, she was rated as incompetent but likable. Yet the choices male finance directors made did not matter -- the men were always judged to be fairly likable and competent.

What is especially interesting is that most of this bias is wholly invisible to the judgers themselves (who express astonishment when the bias is pointed out). Also, men and women are both likely to judge the genders according to this differential scheme.

What is to be done? Note that there might be an "appropriate" way for women to act in the examples having to do with the right amount of aggression. Perhaps there is some acceptable girl-brain way of doing those tasks? We should ask Mr. Gurian.

But no such solution will help women in the example about coping with either a work crisis or a family emergency, because either choice leaves her with a negative evaluation. The solution must be a change in the way we judge others and must include making these gender schemes something we are aware of.

|

Perhaps Not Just Prone 



That would be the position of women in al-Qaida, according to the number two seeded terrorist, Ayman Al-Zawahri. Women can also take care of the male al-Qaida members' children and houses. That's it, pretty much:

In response to a female questioner, al-Qaida No. 2 leader Ayman Al-Zawahri said in April that the terrorist group does not have women. A woman's role, he said on the Internet audio recording, is limited to caring for the homes and children of al-Qaida fighters.

His remarks have since prompted an outcry from fundamentalist women, who are fighting or pleading for the right to be terrorists. The statements have also created some confusion, because in fact suicide bombings by women seem to be on the rise, at least within the Iraq branch of al-Qaida.

A'eeda Dahsheh is a Palestinian mother of four in Lebanon who said she supports al-Zawahri and has chosen to raise children at home as her form of jihad. However, she said, she also supports any woman who chooses instead to take part in terror attacks.

Another woman signed a more than 2,000-word essay of protest online as Rabeebat al-Silah, Arabic for "Companion of Weapons."

"How many times have I wished I were a man ... When Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahri said there are no women in al-Qaida, he saddened and hurt me," wrote "Companion of Weapons," who said she listened to the speech 10 times. "I felt that my heart was about to explode in my chest...I am powerless."

All this reminds me of that Stokely Carmichael quote about the proper position of women in SNCC:

In 1964, Ruby Doris Smith Robinson presented an indignant assault on the treatment of women civil rights workers in a paper entitled "The Position of Women in SNCC," to a SNCC staff meeting. Stokely Carmichael reputedly responded, "The only position for women in SNCC is prone."

If you can forget the extremely distasteful context of terrorism in this topic the messages are fairly similar. Even liberation organizations and terrorist organizations are boys' tree-houses and girls are not allowed. The "liberation" is somehow oddly not for women at all. Just think where the women ended after the French Revolution was over (with a worse legal position than before it) or what happened to women's position when the old Soviet bloc crumbled.

But of course most of us wouldn't have been surprised by Al-Zawahri's response at all. Isn't radical Islam really strongly invested in forcing women back into seclusion, away from paid employment and back under the rules of the Sharia law which doesn't treat women equally with men? Why would these women expect anything different from those who hold such opinions?


------
Hat tip to upyernoz who wrote about this topic under a title which translates to "the mujahida (the
word mujahid, holy warrior, with a feminine ending tacked on) needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle."

|

Sunday, June 01, 2008

Michael Gurian strikes again (by Suzie) 



         Search this blog if you want to read more about his expertise on gender. His latest book explains how men and women lead differently in business "so we can decide who is better at what in the business world," Forbes explains. I guess it's too hard to evaluate people as individuals.
          Gurian says men and women act differently in the workplace, not because they're socialized differently, but because their brains are different. That's why it's hard for Clinton because she has to "compete like a man." Gurian adds: "A woman right now running for office is caught."
         Here are a few suggestions for politics and business: Let's talk about the different ways people lead. But let's not assume that people can be categorized neatly, or that their differences are innate.  Otherwise, people who act against the stereotype are seen as unnatural or inauthentic.

|

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!