Goddess Praise
- "Dear Echidne, I read your blog all the time! I love it."
- Katha Pollitt, the Nation
- 2005 Koufax Award Winner: Most Deserving of Wider Recognition
- Yes, you read it right. I won.
- DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!
Links
- A Blog Around the Clock
- Adventus
- Agitprop
- Alas, A Blog
- Alternet
- The American Street
- And Another Thing
- Angry Black Bitch
- Baghdad Burning
- Best of Both Worlds
- Bitch. Ph.D.
- blackfeminism.org
- Blog Sisters
- Blue and White
- Bouphonia
- Broadsheet
- Bush v Choice
- Conservatives for American Values
- Crooks and Liars
- Daddy Dialectic
- Dependable Renegade
- Devil's Dictionary Defiled
- Diary of an Anxious Black Woman
- Donna's Place
- Eschaton
- eteraz.org
- Ezra Klein
- Fact-esque, A Reality-Based Blog
- Faux Real Tho!
- the f-word
- Feminist Blogs
- Feminist Campus
- Feminist Law Professors
- Feministe
- Feministing.com
- First Draft
- Frogblog
- Fuming Mucker
- TheGarance.com
- Girlistic.com
- GOTV
- Graphic Truth
- Heavens to Mergatroyd
- Hecate
- The Heretik
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo (Digby)
- I Blame The Patriarchy
- Informed Comment
- James Wolcott
- Jesus' General
- Katha Pollitt Dot Com
- Kathryn Cramer
- La Chola
- Laura, 11D
- Lance Mannion
- Lawyers, Guns and Money
- The Left Coaster
- The Liberal Avenger
- Liberal Oasis
- Liberty Street
- Mad Melancholic Feminista
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Maya's Granny
- Multi Medium
- Net Politik
- The Next HurraH
- News From the Front - Fair And Balanced
- No Capital
- Nothing New Under the Sun
- Nyarlathoteps' Miscellany
- Oh No A Woc PhD
- olvlzl
- One Good Thing
- Orcinus
- Our Word
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Paralysis of the Mind
- Pen-Elayne on the Web
- Pensito Review
- pesky'apostrophe
- Pharyngula
- Pinko Feminist Hellcat
- Preemptive Karma
- Prometheus6
- Pseudo-Adrienne's Liberal-Feminist Bias
- Raw Story
- The Reaction
- Rebel Dad
- RH Reality Check
- Rising Hegemon
- Roger Ailes
- Rox Populi
- The Rude Pundit
- Science and Politics
- scribblingwoman
- Shakespeare's Sister
- Shrillblog
- Sivacracy.Net
- skippy the bush kangaroo
- slacktivist
- Sour Duck
- Spiiderweb
- Spocko's Brain
- Steve Bates
- Stone Court
- Suburban Guerrilla
- TalkLeft
- TAPPED
- TBogg
- Think Progress
- Unclaimed Territory - By Glenn Greenwald
- The Vanity Press
- Welcome to the Sideshow (Avedon)
- What She Said
- Where in Washington, D.C...
- Zuky
- DONATE: FEED THE GODDESS!
The Liberal Coalition
Archives
- 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003
- 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004
- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004
- 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004
- 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004
- 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004
- 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004
- 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004
- 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004
- 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004
- 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007
- 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007
- 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
- 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008
- 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008
- 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008
- 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008
- 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008
- 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
- 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008
- 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008
- 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008
- 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008
- 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009
- 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009
- 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009
- 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009
- 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009
- 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009
- 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009
- 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009
Powered by
RSSify at WCC
ATOM Feed
OPINIONS OF ECHIDNE OF THE SNAKES, A MINOR GREEK GODDESS. She can be reached at: ECHIDNE-OF-THE-SNAKES.COM
Friday, October 31, 2008
A dEEP tHOUGHT fOR hALLOWEEN!
Does that look scary? In any case, today's deep thought is about credit cards and the weird flip-flopping the credit card industry has undergone recently, having moved from trying to stop people ever walking away from a bankruptcy to advocating for forgiveness of some percentage of delinquent credit charges. Well, it's not quite about that, but close. I have a question: Why aren't those little pieces of plastic called debt cards? That's what they are, you know, and calling them that might remind people about the fact. |
Vote. TODAY.
You might have read my last plea, last week, with a very similar title. If not, I'm going to direct you here and ask that you go read it. And I'm going to be so indulgent as to quote myself: No one who has the ability and the wherewithal to vote before November 4th should be taking a space in line that day.The argument goes that long lines on election day are a hindrance to the rights of working people, elderly people, and other people who can't stand in line for four hours to exercise their right to vote. Long lines are encouraged by strict republican vote watchers in districts known to go democratic in the past. Long lines on election day can be avoided by going to vote early. This is one way that you can help make democracy run smoother, and make your life easier at the same time. Read the original post; I yammered about it much more extensively over there. So instead of yammering again, I'm gonna give you my top ten list of reasons why you should vote TODAY if you're in one of those states that allows early voting (my eternal pardons if your state does not - your job, my friends, is to get on the horn with your elected representatives after this election and demand that early voting be instituted before the next voting cycle). Now, there's a million top ten lists like this over the internet. I'm making most of this up (some I'm cribbing loosely from the one the dems are handing out in my town), but it may sound familiar. To wit: ten reasons you should go out and vote, TODAY. 10. Because the weather might be bad today, and then you can go home and try again tomorrow. If it's bad on election day, you'll be stuck sitting outside in the rain and that's that. 9. Because once you vote, the democratic canvassers will get you off their list and stop calling you/knocking on your door/interrupting your dinner/making you wish you were signed up for some elitist party who didn't care about getting the populist vote out by hounding their supporters until every last vote is in. And really, who wants to put up with that until Tuesday? 8. Because once you vote you can make smug remarks to your friends about how you've done your patriotic duty, and have they? 7. Because early voting ends on November 1st in many states, so you can't do it on Sunday or Monday in those areas. It's today, tomorrow, Tuesday, or never. 6. Because today is a weekday. If you try to go tomorrow, you better bet that line is gonna be at least an hour longer. 5. Because the kiddies will be dressed up today. Cute! Tomorrow? Hung over on a sugar crash. Not cute. Who wants to stand in line with that? 4. Because the adults will be all jazzed up for a rager tonight. Cute! Tomorrow? Hung over on from last night's bender. Not cute. Who wants to stand in line with that? 3. Because if there's a problem with your ballot or your registration, you'll still have time to haul yourself down to the county clerk's office to fix it if you find out about it today. If you find out about it on November 4th, not only will it likely be sorted into the "provisional ballot" (aka the "fuggeddit") file, but you'll be slowing the line for others while it gets sorted out. 2. Because daylight savings ends on, like, November 2nd. How confusing is that? Don't be that person that shows up at 7pm at your precinct on November 4th only to find out that 7pm is really 9pm, or it's really November 5th already, or something like that. Come on, time just disappears on that day - how eerie is that?! 1. Because let's get back to the basics here: the GOP is relying on long lines in blue precincts to force those working voters, voters with kids in daycare, elderly voters, voters with health problems, voters with any reason (and there are many) to be unable to stand outside for four hours waiting to vote to leave before the cast that blue ballot. The left-leaning candidates are counting on early voting to circumvent the clusterf**k that is our third-world worthy local voting system. They are counting on every person who can vote early to do so, so that those who cannot have a place in line that day. This means Obama at the forefront of course, but this also goes for the congressional races and local races. In my town, these races also include a very good shot at putting a Green candidate in place of a notorious old-school democrat who needs to get the boot. This will only happen if every person who can gets out there and votes, and votes now. Time is running down, the deadline for early voting in many states is tomorrow. Vote. TODAY. |
Happy Halloween! (by Suzie)
At the last minute, I got a ticket out of the country. Not only do I get to escape the wall-to-wall political ads, but I also don't have to open my door to strangers seeking candy. In that spirit, let me warn you that dressing as Obama may be dicey if you're not African-American, especially if you don't spring for a mask. And not just any mask. If you're a woman, and you dress as Sarah Palin, don't forget to be extra sexy. (Of course, that's the advice for women and girls, no matter what the costume.) Apparently, lots of men plan to dress as Palin because it's always a scream for a man to pretend to be a woman. (Feel free to go back and read my post on blackface and drag.) |
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Election Music
"Save The Country" by Laura Nyro. Yes, I've posted it before, too. And Tracy Chapman: And Johnny Nash with "I Can See Clearly Now": And The Impressions with "This is My Country": |
6. The Longest Revolution
This is the sixth post in my "back-to-basics" series about why I became a feminist and why feminism is still needed. I'm not certain if this is the last post, but I believe that I'm going to pause for a while after this one. The earlier posts are: 1. The Right to Go Out 2. Planet of the Guys 3. Our Father Who Art in Heaven 4. The Invisible Women 5. The Female Body As Property The posts are not in any order of importance. Neither do they aim at being a logical classification of all the issues that matter about the status of women in this world. Indeed, I doubt that I will even end up covering the most common topics of such discussions: sexual violence, sex discrimination at work or at school or religious laws which regulate women's lives in many countries. All those topics matter, a lot. But if you think about the treatment of women as an onion, the layers we usually talk about are around the outer skin of that onion. I'm trying to drill into the very middle, to talk about the hidden layers, the ones which we truly cannot see. I'm not going to get at all of them and my interpretations are not the only possible ones. Still, I think doing this can be of some benefit, at least as the starting point for a conversation. Then to the post itself: Remember our earlier discussion about the odd way women are often viewed as a subspecies of homo sapiens while men are viewed as not a separate gender at all? Remember how that makes women both invisible as persons and very visible as specimens of womanhood? Remember that separate box I drew to represent women in the second post? Mmm. Now I'm going to turn the whole thing upside-down by arguing that despite all that treatment of women as one of the groups of Others, women are also extremely tightly intertwined with every level of every society! They are integrated, scattered evenly all over the place like raisins into a cake batter! Every single one of us has a woman for a mother! By necessity, because we earthlings haven't figured out a way to make babies without women's wombs. This means that the richest people on earth will have women in their families and so will the poorest people on earth, and women themselves are both rich and poor on this planet. Indeed, there are women in all sorts of families, from all races, religions, ethnic and cultural groups! That women are so integrated on that most primal of levels probably explains why sexism is harder to see than other -isms which oppress people. If women are killed because of their sex it mostly doesn't happen in large public slaughterings but privately, one woman at a time, and in each case we wonder if the cause for the killing might not have been something personal, something unrelated to the gender of the victim. And note that while most racists don't have parents of the race they now hate, all misogynists do. -- It's all too close, too intimate, too hard to see because we lack the necessary distance, the necessary ability to see the possibly oppressed as a separate group. You may wonder where I'm going with all this, other than pointing out that sexism is hard to see because of the integrated nature of women in the society. I could go many different ways, actually, ranging from a long discussion about why women will never be a clear-cut interest group because of their multiple allegiances to an angry discussion about why a male politician telling us that he loves his mother says nothing about what he thinks about women in general. But instead of that I'm going to pick a topic which my visiting alien found confusing. It is this one: Suppose that in a few large countries on this planet the population is determined to make one ethnic group extinct, not by killing the adults in that group but by making sure that babies in that ethnic group are not born or by killing the babies which are born. Suppose that the killing consists of feeding the babies dried beans or by letting the umbilical cord become infected, of abandoning the babies at the roadside or of letting the babies starve to death. What would you think the media coverage of these events elsewhere in the world would consist of? Do you think that it would carefully explain why that particular ethnic group isn't as important as other ethnic groups (so that their annihilation is sorta understandable)? Or do you think that it would worry about the resulting mix of the remaining ethnic groups and how that mix hurts the ethnic groups which were never assaulted in the first place? That sounds so ridiculous, does it not? But this is exactly how the newspaper stories about the vanishing girls of India and China are often framed. First we get a careful explanation why girls are not wanted (and, yes, I have written like this, too): sons are needed for the hard work at the farm, for the support of the parents in old age and for the religious roles which only men can carry out. Then we get articles about how bad it is for the society in general and for men in particular not to have access to adult women at the breeding stage. Men need wives! If they don't get them, violence will erupt! Even the term usually employed to reflect the reasons for the wonky sex-ratios in some parts of India and China: "son preference", serves to hide the underlying real problem: Daughters. Not. Wanted. The articles which point that out and suggest policies which might make daughters more wanted are extremely rare. It's as if we all take it for granted that daughters are inferior creatures but, really, women should try to have them as later on they will turn out useful as peace-keepers in the society and as providers of more children. Though for other families, of course, and it will still be true that a mother who gives birth to yet another daughter has failed her family. These descriptions of the two possible ways to cover the disappearing women of India and China as a news item are caricatures, of course, and a more complicated and deeper treatment is possible. But note the basic reason for the prevalence of the second treatment: It has to do with the way women are integrated into almost all families and how this disguises the resulting consequences for the class "women". Thus, we calmly report that sons are preferred in most cultures of this planet. It's Just The Way Things Are. Now, to act on that preference is bad, because of the "imbalanced" society it creates. But to have the preference is understandable. I called this post "The Longest Revolution", both after an early second wave feminist book and because feminism indeed always takes a very long time to get anything changed in the society. The snail's pace has a lot to do with the way women are everywhere and nowhere at the same time, with the idea that we all have mothers and many of us have daughters which must mean that women don't suffer from any specific ills in this society and with the way we have "biologized" or "naturalized" anything that ends up treating women poorly. Our cultures themselves take precedence over "women's concerns": If traditional cultural values are misogynistic many argue that those values must nevertheless be respected. Yet many traditional cultural values are also xenophobic, for instance. Should we respect those values, too? My alien visitor has gone out to buy a t-shirt saying "This Is What A Feminist Looks Like." Now isn't that something? It's useful to point out, once again, that much progress has taken place for women in some places on earth, much. Yet even here in the U.S. we earthlings discuss the cleavages or butts of female politicians and our media wonders if those female politicians make "us" think of our ex-wives at the divorce court and frets over the immense, unquenchable, rabid ambition of women who dare to run in politics, Hitlery and Caribou Barbie and so on. This, my friends, is the post-feminist world. |
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Sam Bee And Women's "Health"
5. The Female Body As Property
![]() My embroidery called "Choices". The fifth post in this series about why feminism still matters. The earlier ones are: 1. The Right to Go Out 2. Planet of the Guys 3. Our Father Who Art in Heaven 4. The Invisible Women Yesterday my visiting alien from outer space came to me all excited (you can see it from the quivering antennae). It had learned the concept of property, both public and private, and it had decided to apply it to women's bodies and sexuality. Its conclusion was that women and their sexuality are private property, belonging to husbands, fathers and sons, in much of the world, including most Muslim countries, and that women in the Western democracies are public property, belonging to everybody. "Nononono!" I said. "You have it all wrong. Women do own their bodies and sexuality in most countries of this world. They can decide what to wear and who to have sex with. They can decide if they will be pregnant and so on." My alien friend wasn't convinced. It asked me what would happen if I went out shirtless and braless, for example. Wouldn't I get arrested, unless my name was not Echidne but Ed? And can a woman choose whether she uses contraception or not, in all countries? Can she use it if her husband doesn't want her to? Can she breastfeed her baby in public? It then asked me about pornography. Why is the majority of porn about women's bodies? Why is most of it aimed for men's consumption. Who owns the right to view the generic "female body"? Sometimes I really hate this alien. I had to explain about the sexual difference between men and women, how men get turned on by the very sight of the female body and how that means that women must cover those bits of their bodies which mostly inflame men's desires. Otherwise the men can't control themselves. Men are so much more visual than women, and the society reflects that, by regulating the amount of female nudity allowed in the public sphere. We can't have naked breasts slip out suddenly on television, in the middle of a football game, say. "Breasts.." mused the alien. "They are for nurturing the young humans, right? But what about pornography, then? If men are more visual than women and easily inflamed, shouldn't porn be illegal or severely regulated? It sounds to me as if women are not in control of the female body, even in the West. Someone else, is. Someone else determines when that body can turn up naked in your visual fields." OK. So I stormed out of the room, slamming the door. The sound almost covered the alien yelling at me something about ancient Chinese foot binding and female genital mutilation and plastic breasts and the permeability of the female body in general. I'm sending the poor thing back as a rabid feminist and its planet has no genders! Now I wish I hadn't lost my temper, because even though the alien got some of the arguments clearly wrong, there is something odd about the way we view the female body and female sexuality in general, something non-exclusive, something that is more like a shared natural resource than a characteristic of the individual woman. Even the very concept of a sexy picture brings to mind -- what? Probably the idea of scantily clad women or naked women in alluring positions. And this idea is so general that even women or men who don't get turned on by women's bodies might get it. It's as if sex is something women "own" in a very passive sense: The sex is there. Now come and get it if you can. This is a very different view of property from the first one this post mentions, but it's almost as common, especially among the traditionalists. According to them, it is women who are responsible for sex, the gatekeepers who are somehow supposed to control men's sexual desires by how they dress and by what they say. This view ignores the possibility of rape and other forced uses of female sexuality and altogether gives women far too much responsibility for something they probably can't control. Think of that lack of control this way: If men indeed are almost complete slaves to visual images then a woman walking below a porn poster would be at risk of attention from passing men even if she was totally covered except for one visible eye. Because that poster is there, inflaming the dangerous desires of men. Now, I don't actually believe that men are slaves to visual images of sex. Most of the arguments I've heard in its support are circular: Why is there so much porn for men? Because men are very visual in their sexuality. What's your evidence for that? All that porn for men. And round we go again. This post is a mess, mostly (though so is our overall discussion about sexuality), and I don't want to give the impression that women are total victims in the sexual games people play, because it's certainly possible to play these games with the hand of cards women are given and to sometimes win. Still, to understand female sexuality within our current cultures is not possible without understanding how we define sex in general and who owns the female body. |
A Support Thread For All Who Suffer From Election Stress
|
Have Your Kleenex Ready
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
May I Have Some Cheese With This Whine?
I think some Wensleydale would hit the spot right now. Or possibly a nice farmhouse cheese rolled in cracked black peppers. The whine I can provide myself. It's all about the tense last week before the elections and my extreme loathing of any topic having to do with campaign shenanigans combined with the inner librarian who tells me firmly that I should live in the moment and write about only the campaign. But wait, there's more. Next time I offer to write a series about why feminism is still needed, please get a rubber mallet and hit me with it on the head. Or suggest the Iron Man competition as an alternative. If I had known the energy needs and the emotional wear and tear of that series I would have done it with a fund-raiser so that I'd have the money I need for that month in a darkened room. Perhaps quite a few of you are tense, too, what with the elections and the roller-coaster of the financial markets? I'm not sure if a support thread for that would be good or bad. Would it be tension-enabling? To atone my conscience about not writing enough on the elections, here's Pat Schroeder with a message for Colorado voters (and really all of us): |
Social/Cultural Conservatives
The Republican Party appears to be heading towards some internal power struggles, as discussed in these two pieces. Reading them reminded me how very much I hate the labels "social conservatism" and "cultural conservatism." There are liberals/progressives who think that cultural conservatism has something to do with flower arranging and museum visit. Oh, and gay marriages. Oh, and abortion. But can we please stay serious and discuss the real issues which are of interest to all lefties. Likewise, social conservatism sounds as if it's about just keeping things the same, whereas in actual fact it is about changing things (such as Roe v. Wade) and it is also very much about, say, the subordination of women within families and in the wider society. That some people find all this a special interest topic is of special interest in itself. |
Rwanda
The Washington Post has an interesting article on Rwanda:
|
Monday, October 27, 2008
Modern Day Sex Slavery
The FBI and the police have rescued a further 47 children from pimps. Here in the USA:
Adults are held in such conditions, too. |
Ted Stevens Found Guilty
I haven't written much about the corruption scandals which have pestered mostly Republicans recently, but it's worth pointing out the Ted Stephens case:
Corruption is a bad thing, for all sorts of fairly obvious reasons. But I'd love to see a proper court case into all that money that has disappeared into the Iraq reconstruction project without creating much reconstruction at all. |
4. The Invisible Women
This is the fourth post in my series about why feminism is still needed and why I am a feminist. It's useful to point out that we have come a long way, baby (yeah!), and that progress takes place all the time. Still, too many people want to go backwards in time and culture and too many people are blind to the reality we all share. A shaking of those hidden basic assumptions is in order. The earlier posts are, in order: The Right To Go Out, The Planet of the Guys and Our Father Who Art in Heaven. This post is about the odd way earthlings see and don't see women, from the detached view of a visiting alien from outer space. There is no good title for the post, though I settled for "invisibility" in it. "Settled", because women are often both invisible as human beings and extremely visible as women. This creates the odd impression that the U.S. Congress, for instance, is teeming with women (just think of Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi), whereas in reality the percentage of women in the U.S. Congress is only 16%. For another example, consider this publicity photograph of the popular "Seinfeld" television series: ![]() For those of you who haven't viewed the series, the four people in the picture are the main characters in the series. One of them, Elaine, is a woman. There's nothing wrong with having a series with 75% male characters. But note that we tend not to think of this series as something for the guys or with a guy angle. We think of it as a fairly mainstream program intended for both men and women. Yet Elaine really stands for "woman" in this series. Now do a reversal. Imagine that picture with three women and one man as the main characters. What would that look like? It would look like something for the chicks ("chicks" being female human beings, not individuals from the species gallus domesticus). Astute readers might complain that this sounds exactly like my second post, all about men being the default as human beings. But this is where the current post deviates from that one: One of the consequences of the separate-but-not-equal view of women as a subspecies of homo sapiens is that just a sprinkling of women in some group appears to be enough to get that subspecies covered! So one Elaine covers the need to have women in "Seinfeld", a handful of female politicians appears to cover the need for female representation in politics, three woman columnists in the stable of 27 political columnists of the Washington Post appears plentiful for the coverage of the "woman angle"! Our alien visitor finds all this extremely fascinating. It just pointed to me how this approach is in direct conflict with the fact that 50.7% of all Americans are female. Mostly earthlings think that having one woman on a committee or a couple of women in a movie or television show is plenty! A movie which reflects that 50.7% frequency from real life is at risk for being labeled a chick flick, something for women only. A movie with 100% male cast has a fairly good chance of being seen as mainstream unless it's about porn. Curious stuff. Now for the odd paradox of extreme visibility/invisibility: Because women are still often seen as Others, one or two representatives from that group both suffice AND draw our attention! This means that most women are invisible as people, but that the women in the public eye are extremely visible as spoonfuls of that amorphous substance called womanhood. The consequences of this to women are complicated but mostly negative. For an example, female actors will find it harder to find interesting roles to play, because they might be cast as "women" (which means as wives, girlfriends, mothers, and whores) and not as the absent-minded person, the geeky person, the stupid person, the jock person. Likewise, women who write (ahem) might find their writing task interpreted by others as pertaining to only female matters. After all, female writers are first seen as specimens (or tokens) from that separate group "women" and only then as individuals with their own strengths, weaknesses and interests. So much for the extreme visibility of women as "women." But note that this means the extreme invisibility of most women, the ones whom we don't see on television anywhere near to their population proportions, the ones who don't get roles in movies because they are too old or too ethnic or whatever other characteristic disqualifies them from standing as a representative of womanhood. It also means a lot of invisibility to women as individuals with their own particular character traits. As is well known, only default human beings can truly be seen as individuals. What our visiting alien finds especially sad about all this is that women are not just invisible as persons to many men; they are also invisible as persons to many women. Thus, sports programs with nothing but men shown in them are called "sports" and the female fans are perfectly comfortable with that. I've tried explaining that the fishes who swim in the ocean don't find the water wet, but to no avail. Perhaps I can turn the tables when I visit the home planet of our distant guest. But for the time being, it has a point worth thinking about. A slightly different aspect of the invisible women cropped up in the conversation the alien and I had yesterday (inside my head, of course). It remarked on the frequency with which conversations on the Internet turn to questions about female breasts, female attractiveness and how very often quarrels result in one discussant scolding another for "acting or thinking like a twelve-year girl" or something similar. This happens even when many of the people talking are female and clearly express their gender in their comments. The alien wanted to know if women often turn the conversation in a mixed-sex setting to the thickness of various penises and the faulty thinking of pre-pubertal boys, and if not, why not? My hesitant answer was that women are aware of the presence of men in the conversation and would not wish to make insulting comments or to turn the male body into the meal de jour. I call the answer hesitant, because I'm not sure that the women in the discussion truly are invisible to those men who take the described types of liberties. But the alternative is even less flattering to those who rant and rave about "bawling like a twelve-year old girl". |
Teh Stupid It Burns
This is a terrible article about divorce and its possible correlation with recessions. It pulls out every single old stereotype, sweeps together the dust off the floor and pretends that all this makes an article. Thus, women mostly divorce to clean out the husband's bank account, men to get more pussy. Women are homebodies (not working out there as the majority of women actually are). Men are into Internet porn and infidelity when stressed, women into talking things out and eating too much. Nobody has any deep regrets or sadness over a pending divorce, nobody thinks that the death of love is not that different from the death of a loved one. Nope. Everything is trivial, breezy, cobbled together from various pop-science sources. For example:
Nothing in that piece about women earning less, on average, which is reason enough for more of them to be worried. |
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Funny
Open Letter Addressing E-mailed Objections by Anthony McCarthy
| The pieces I posted over the last two weeks prompted a thought provoking e-mail correspondence over the issues of free speech and freedom of the press. I think some of the points raised are important and will answer them here. Free Speech The First amendment prohibition of the suppression of free speech only applies to the government. It doesn’t apply to anyone else, least of all private citizens. Short of violence and the threats of violence, private citizens are entirely free to approve or disapprove of anything that is said by anyone else in the space of public discourse. In the context of a scheduled lecture or other event, the freedom to disrupt is not absolute. But like it or not, the morality of disrupting a public speaker isn’t clear cut. It depends on the content and context of what the speaker is saying. There are times it is clearly either wrong or tactically stupid to shout down a speaker, there are times when it is a moral imperative to do so. That this becomes murky might be unfortunate, but the facile drawing of a phony bright line in a situation that is comprised of many different variables, some of life and death consequence, is irresponsible and idiotic. The fad that took hold among liberals that held that we had to be nice about even those who advocated the denial of rights to other people, especially those in targeted minority groups is absurd. The assumption always seemed to be that conservatives would learn from our good example of niceness and broad mindedness. Well, as anyone with any grasp of real life would know, they didn’t see it as an example to emulate but proof that liberals were suckers giving them an opportunity. Did these deluded liberals really think that conservatives were going to really give liberals an opportunity for their ‘more speech’ to be heard, especially if it could have some effect in real life? As to bigots allegedly on the left, I think I said enough about that last Saturday, I stand by that. Freedom of the press The freedom of the press is primarily important in so far as it is a necessary part of the right of The People to govern themselves. When the press not only refuses to inform the public of reality but actively undermines that function through propaganda, their right to freely publish effectively disappears. Our broadcast and cable media have reneged on the implied contract and have actively sought to undermine the ability of The People to cast an informed vote. I am not going to pretend that they have a right to do that which is superior to the right to self-government. It is stupid for us to promote their right to undermine the conditions necessary for the press to retain that very conditional right I think the history of the media in the past century to today shows that mass media, in the form of broadcast, cable and others have an enormous ability to damage democracy, much more so than print. Almost all modern despots have used that fact to their advantage. The most dramatic example from recent times was the use of hate-talk radio to incite the genocide attempt in Rwanda. I’d say that example is too clear and horrible not to learn from. And the stuff that issues from our radio is not all that far removed from it. I do think it could incite mass violence. It certainly incites bigotry and I fully believe it incites violence on a more disbursed though hardly less important scale here and now. As I’ve asked the absolutists, where is the “more speech” they’re always giving as their lofty answer to those of us who have given up on that easily stated position. The clear evidence is that liberals, leftists, even Democrats are not allowed media representation commensurate with our percentage of the population. The very far right, a very small fraction of the population, is given a a megaphone large enough so that even the most willfully denying absolutist should hear the electronically enhanced roar. About the only lesson I derive from their denial of that situation is that they have professional and personal interests unrelated to the desire for decent, democratic government. Many of the professional absolutists have careers in the media and are often quite comfortably affluent and members of groups seldom put at risk from hate-talk media. In a media environment dominated by electronic media the position of print inevitably changes and becomes far less influential. I don’t think that print carries the same potential to damage democracy and incite violence, though it isn’t innocuous. In both the matter of private citizens address of free speech and The Peoples’ right to have the press serve their needs, the assertion of content neutrality is absurd. There is all the difference in the world between promoting legal and political equality and the promotion of the subjugation and even genocide of entire groups of people. There is no right to suppress the first, there is no right to broadcast the latter. It is equally absurd to assert that the medium doesn’t matter. TV, especially cable TV, and radio have enormous power to do harm. They installed an illegitimate president here and incited a war which was unprovoked, illegal which has killed hundreds of thousands. What is the difference between what our electronic media has done and what those did in Rwanda? Both produced huge numbers of dead and maimed people, both did incalculable harm. It wasn’t print media that did that here and now. History has shown over and over again that pretending the electronic media should have the same freedom as print is entirely detached from reality and that it is a dangerous and delusional practice. Media should be entirely free to tell the truth, the facts verified and supported. That right should be absolute and trumpeted as a service to humanity. When the media informs of reality it’s rights are as close to absolute as corporate entities should be allowed. They shouldn’t be allowed to vary from that practice by replacing facts with lies, bias, pseudo-scientific polling and predictions and rumor*. Those have become the dominant content of the American ‘news’ media, they are cheaper than reporting and easier to manipulate for the purpose of propaganda. That it is impossible to effectively ban the opportunistic use of opinion in the electronic media makes the regulation of it for fairness and balance essential. The rise and dominance of right-wing, hate-talk media followed the FCC’s abandonment of those regulations, modern hate-talk media was created by media corporations in order to install politicians who would maximize their profits, impure and simple. Liberals and others who believe in self-government, equality and a decent society can’t continue to delude themselves on these matters. If we don’t learn from the example that the history of the modern media provides we will lose all three of those. I’d rather take a chance on the status quo media from the period when it was regulated than on what has happened since it was deregulated. * The media promotion of politically motivated rumor has led me to think that public figures should, once again, be able to sue for slander and libel. Our media, freed from the dangers of those, have used the freedom to lie against anyone who they thought would not enhance their profits. Update: Answers to a persistent questioner. The idea that access to use the mass media is the exercise of a speech right is a mass delusion, one at times encouraged by those habitually granted access to it. Free access to the media is a situation that has never existed in either corporate or non-commercial media. All mass media is restrictive in its content, it isn’t an open forum like some blogs allow in their comments*. Look at the troll population of some of the more popular blogs to get some idea of why that is so. Editors edit, publishers refuse material, they don’t accept all content for publication, that is the right of any media operation which doesn’t use public property in its operations and many which do. Unlike an individual’s right of free speech, there is also no absolute right to broadcast a message in the mass media, it is a privilege granted by the government or at the whim of cable companies, sometimes on the basis of contracts. The public access channel, which in many places has apparently has gone from its perpetual sick bed to the grave in the past several years, was a fig leaf of free access covering the reality of raw corporate opportunism. As I remember it, public access channels were instituted in return for communities granting monopoly rights to cable firms. Those kinds of piddling mitigations of corporate privilege are generally disposed of in the fullness of time. It not being a right to broadcast, it being a privilege, there is no reason that those granted the privilege can’t be forced as a condition of their continuing in that form, to serve the public whose eyes and attention they are in the business of selling. The Peoples’ time to inform itself is a publicly held resource. If that time is not partly dedicated to becoming informed enough to participate in self-government, democracy can’t exist. The People in the form of their government have a responsibility to force media to do its civic duty in reality, not in the pantomime of flag waving and slogan peddling it does now. A broadcast corporation wanting to be unrestricted by those conditions has an absolute right to give up broadcasting and go into print. No one is stopping them from doing that. The freedom of religion from regulation is also contained in the Bill of Rights, but the right to have tax exemptions isn’t part of that. A religious institution which forgoes tax exemption can endorse political candidates, parties, ballot questions, etc, and no one can deny them that right. But if they want to retain their tax exemption they are under an obligation to forego that kind of explicit advocacy. It’s not the right for religious institutions to advocate a position that is at question, it’s the privilege of receiving a tax exemption that is. I think it is about as close a parallel to the ability to hold a broadcast license as there is. I advocate extending the regulation of broadcast media to cable and satellite on the grounds of necessity. They have the ability to destroy democracy and to cause enormous harm, that is reason enough to impose conditions on their ability to operate in the United States. Any right to conduct commercial activities can be regulated if there is an overriding public interest. The selling of the Iraq war, the impeachment of President Clinton, the blatant example of FOX on election night in 2000, all prove an overriding public interest. Democracy can’t be allowed to die because people can’t distinguish between a privilege and a right or between individual citizens and pretend persons in the form of corporations. * Blog owners who restrict the content of their blog are as much practicing their rights as those who choose to have an open forum. |
Saturday, October 25, 2008
An Ordinary Dinner Party (by Phila)
Fancy Water Markets (by Phila)
| Anyone who follows the climate change debate knows that it's common for hack journalists and inactivists to weigh the negative effects of rising seas on New York City, Tokyo, and Bangladesh against the positive effects of warmer temperatures on Greenland. It's possible that a few million people here or there may be displaced, the argument goes, but these refugees can at least be fed on fresh vegetables from the Arctic Circle. Things may get a little worse in Nyala, but they'll get a little better in Nuuk, and who can say that this is not for the best in this best of all possible worlds? Greenland's officials have been more than happy to play this game, and can usually be relied on for rather sociopathic quotes about the "benefits" of global warming to that country's 58,000 citizens. We may not ordinarily pay much heed to their complaints about cold weather -- no one asked them to live there, after all -- but expecting them to forgo economic opportunity amounts to a sin against the holy spirit. We may not quite accept the physical connection between human activity and climate, or between Greenland's climate and America's, but the ideological connection between Greenland's unbridled growth and our own is perfectly clear, and makes their struggle ours. Apropos of which, Joseph Romm notes that Greenland's melting glaciers comprise a lot of fresh water that could easily be sold to "fancy water markets" around the world. Currently, the government is planning to drill into its icebergs; however, Romm points out that Greenland's ice melt is "enough to supply the city of Los Angeles with fresh water for more than 50 years." At a couple of dollars a bottle, that's more than enough to put Greenland on the map! Better yet, this water has been frozen for thousands of years, which means it has fewer pollutants and will allow people who buy it to feel a deeper connection with pure, unspoiled Nature. One potential boom market could be Appalachia, where the government is preparing to scrap the rules that forbid mining companies from dumping waste into streams: On Friday, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) released its assessment of stream buffer zones - basically giving mining companies the environmental green light to dump mining waste in or near streams.Better yet, it could help Greenland cash in on the fancy water market! And if they're happy, then we're potentially happy, at the very least. If you have no qualms about standing in the way of progress, you might want to contact the EPA and ask them not to repeal the Stream Buffer Zone rule. You may also want to consider whether John McCain's pathetically low rating from the League of Conservation Voters is relevant to any of these issues. |
Vote. EARLY.
You've seen the bumper stickers, you've heard your friends wax self-righteous that they've already done it. Now it's your turn: Vote, dangit. Ten days to go, and here's why you want to vote now. Not tomorrow, not next week, and definitely not on election day. I sat in on a meeting a few days ago for partisan volunteers who are aiming to work the precincts on election day. It was an interesting talk, from a strategy perspective. The on-the-ground democratic strategizers are predicting - assuming, preparing for - regular and systematic challenges to every voter with any iota of irregularity worth challenging in any precinct that has traditionally leaned blue. A misspelling of a long ethnic name, a discrepancy between "street" and "avenue" on your drivers license, a typo that transposes a couple of numbers in the address on your voter registration card. If you live in a heavily democratic zone, expect there to be any guff that can be cooked up over your right to vote. It may not happen, this may be a regional over-reaction to national scrapping between the big guns, but after Florida circa 2000? I'm not gonna call it conspiracy theory; the democratic brass aren't calling it that either. In historically democratic precincts, it won't just be about throwing individuals off the rolls - that's small potatoes. The real goods are in a different goal: slowing down the lines at the polls until people by the handful or the dozen or the hundred get bored, cold, or compelled to go back to work/pick up their kids from daycare/return to the demands of their lives before they reach the front of the line to cast their vote in those blue-hued precincts. Even if your personal data line up like the moon in the seventh house, the time will be taken - if you are in those precincts - to inspect your credentials. Slowly. Carefully. Painstakingly. Just, ya know, to make sure you're legit. While someone in line behind you considers if they can really wait another five minutes before their kid's daycare closes, or their afternoon shift starts, or that chill in the November air turns out to be too much for their elderly lungs. It is difficult to face this head on right there on election day. It's an effective strategy, one that is easily wrapped in the patriotic flag of protecting the integrity of the vote - wouldn't want all the Mickey Mouses that ACORN registered (that surely slid right through the voter verification process, natch) to actually cast any of those fraudulent votes, you know. But there is a counter-strategy, and this is it: vote early before the deadline grows short on those long lines. Maybe you'll be that person who will leave the line if you have to wait more than half an hour that day; make your vote count by going to vote this weekend or some day between when you don't have that pressure on you. Maybe you will have all day and then some to wait in line on November 4th: doesn't matter, your presence in line that day will make the line incrementally that much longer, and you may be the straw in the camel's back that causes another voter to leave because the line is just too long. No one who has the ability and the wherewithal to vote before November 4th should be taking a space in line that day. Especially not in historically democratic precincts. Especially not with the stakes so high, and the potential so overwhelming for shifting not only the presidency, but the House, the Senate, and a whole raft of local races toward a more tolerant, peaceable, and progressive future. Now, I know, not every state has early voting. So you can preemptively excuse yourself from my brow-beating if you are from Maryland, Rhode Island, or Washington (Oregonians: hats off to you for running another 100% mail-in/drop-off election - a great end-run around this kind of meddling in the rights of working people to cast their votes). And if you are one of those people who have the time to take off a half day, or even a whole day? Consider hiking your own bad ass down to your local democratic headquarters this weekend to see if they are recruiting volunteers to work on election day. In my region, the main block of volunteers will not be used to defend vote challenges or get tangled up in arguments over whose driver's license is legit, but will be outside on the lines in target precincts bringing warm beverages, bottled water, snacks, chairs, coats, whatever might be needed to keep every voter from leaving that line before they have cast their vote. Even if you drop your ballot for a Green or an independent candidate, you can bet that protecting voter rights in democratic districts where the republicans will be targeting their voter challenges will be a likely way to protect the other independent-minded voters among us. It's a chance to participate in democracy in a larger way than just hanging your chad and moving along; you might even meet some interesting folk. And if you can't afford to spend election day at the polls, even better reason: Vote. Now. |
A Post For Us, We Who Dodged Out of Pep Rallies by Anthony McCarthy
| Organized games are something I just don’t get at all. A form of entertainment in which 100% of the players and fans are hoping that 50% of the players will not do well and so 50% of the fans will be unhappy, it just doesn’t make sense to me. What’s there to be happy about? The unhappiness of the opposing players and fans? If it was the skill and pluck of the players that made people happy, wouldn’t it be set up so the criteria for achieving pleasure allowed all of the players to succeed to the best of their ability? I’ve never understood how, for example, the absurdly named World Series could come out with one of two superbly skilled teams being complete losers. Isn’t the losing side comprised of excellent athletes as well? When you go to a concert or other performance in the arts, you hope everyone does well and the entire audience is edified by the results, unless you’re a creepy, cynical critic with ulterior motives. Why do they go to the performance to begin with, you have to wonder. Maybe their perverse pleasure delivers the same flavor of gratification that the winning side gets from contemplating the pain of the losers in sports. Yes, I know it will be said that analysis is ‘thinking too much about it’. But, isn’t it accurate? I'm going to continue this analysis from my personal experience and observation. Having gone to school before Title Nine, it is an analysis of the antiquated culture. I don't know how the greater participation of girls and women in sports has changed things, I rely on readers to fill that in. Apart from the violence and injury that seems to be an intrinsic part of much of it, the thing I most resent about organized sports is the phony moral value attached to athletic competition. Since shortly after the age of six, I’ve resented that I’m “supposed to like it”. That was a constant expectation of adults during childhood, it was taken for granted that “kids like sports” when it’s clear that many don’t. Refusal to go along with that enforced regime of false enthusiasm carried opprobrium as well as dumfounded astonishment. As Foghorn Leghorn put it, “There’s somethin’ just ‘yeeesh’ about a boy doesn’t play baseball’*. And, for a boy back in those days, it also carried threats of violence, especially if you were unlucky enough to have a school involved in some stupid championship. I especially hated the mandatory pep rallies and the risk involved in illegally skipping out of those. The bromide “sports builds character” was a patent lie. The nice kids who played sports started out nice, the thugs would have been thugs if they’d never put on a team uniform. And there were cases when a kid who used to be nice took a turn for the worse, clearly as a result of taking up a team sport. No one got their character built, though egos and the kind of pack mentality that being part of an approved clique certainly brought out the worst in a lot of them. Maybe you could say that it was bad character that sports built up. The jocks I went to school with, sometimes benefitted in later life from their reputations gained from playing sports in school, sometimes to the detriment of their employers and their customers. The nice guys sometimes didn’t finish ahead but they generally remained nice guys. The association of sports and traditional “christian” morality is a real hoot. Jocks are just so famous for their chastity, their respect for the dignity of women, and their sobriety, aren’t they. That obviously mendacious identification of “christian” morality also is made with the military, the association of which, with sports, would add about another thousand words to this post so I’ll leave that to you. As for health, forty years after, from what I’ve seen, it’s often the jocks who are the most overweight and have bad knees, backs and hips. For some reason gluttony for “manly food” and beer seems to be a constant feature of sports culture. The identification of sports with schools is entirely unfortunate, there is the already mentioned crypto-fascism of “school spirit” but the mania for school sports also brings other problems. Many of the principalis and, especially, vice-principals in the schools I’m familiar with seem to have little apart from their having been sports coaches to qualify them. There have been teachers hired outside of their college majors based on their coaching qualifications. One basketball coach in our highschool majored in business, was hired to teach biology to vocational students** and went on to teach history, also to vocational students who generally get the educational short stick. He was the tallest and one of the most incompetent teacher in the place. And he wasn’t a very good coach as it turned out. He’s a vice principal now. Well, some of us never give in to the pressure and once liberated from that form of penal servitude we are happily free to ignore sports in most, though not all instances. I couldn’t care less about any of it, except for when some sector of the sports industry tires to extort tax money from a public denied the most basic services it has a right to expect. I don’t dislike people just for their being involved in professional sports and am glad to find out there are some of them who are fine people. Though I’m never, ever surprised to hear some sports star endorse a Republican. * What there really is, is something cruel and sick about adults who continue and encourage that school age pecking order behavior against children down to ages you can count on one hand. There isn’t anything more despicable than an adult who does that, some of them employed as teachers. The ones who do that are generally built by sports and sports fandom. ** Vocational track students are often the victims of the least competent teachers in a school. People who often go on to work growing and handling food and caring for young children and sick people would seem to need better biology teachers than people who are going to major in English or history or financial piracy. Update: Just remembered, Ruth Moore, the finest writer my state has yet produced, in my opinion, gave the about best account of what this was like in her novel The Walk Down Maine Street. |
Friday, October 24, 2008
Some Joy For Your Friday
Friday sunflower blogging (by Suzie)
David Lubin, M.D., took this photo, which I've also posted at the Sarcoma Alliance blog because the sunflower is our symbol. |
Washed out (by Suzie)
| I’ve never liked the labels “second wave” and “third wave” because they are so ill-defined. Some describe the first wave as the early 1900s, culminating in the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. If that’s the case, how do we characterize the suffragists of the 1800s? Others see the first wave as stretching from the first women’s rights convention in 1848 until 1920. But this period contained multiple generations. Activism rose and fell and changed course several times. Echidne wrote recently (sorry, I can't remember from which comment thread I lifted this): I'd say that the First Wave was mostly aimed at women's political participation rights and the Second Wave mostly at women's rights to participate in the labor market and women's reproductive rights.I think that’s a good description, but note that laws were changed to let married women own property, including their earnings, during the 1800s. Although not a matter of laws, many occupations also began to open up to women during the first wave. The second wave generally refers to the activism of the 1960s and ’70s (although Wikipedia includes the '80s.) Describing the first and second waves as time periods is easier because few women active in the early 1900s remained so in the 1960s. Such a division is more difficult with the third wave because it overlaps with the second. If we classify feminists by age, what do we say about one who has been active from the 1960s until now? If a 60-year-old woman becomes a feminist today and embraces the latest theories, how does she get categorized? Using age as a criteria would lock older women into the second wave, no matter how their views and activism have changed. Philosopher Judith Butler would be dumped into the second wave, while Sarah Palin could claim the third wave. (For the purposes of this post, I’m not arguing who deserves to call themselves a feminist.) Does the third wave lump together women in their 40s with teens? Chilla Bulbeck questions universalizing by age: The third waver privileges the commonality of age over all other aspects of her complex and contradictory identity. … She is torn between a desire to deconstruct an essentialised feminist "we" and the political need to confirm common bonds.Some see third-wave women as bonded through experiences, especially growing up with feminist mothers in a time that accepts, at least superficially, the idea that women should have equal rights. But what about women who grow up in towns or countries where feminism isn't the norm? If it's difficult to define third-wavers by age or experience, what about issues? Bulbeck writes that feminism shifted its focus from economic and political issues to culture and sexuality in the third wave. But she notes the discrepancies in that theory. For example, the first project of Rebecca Walker’s Third Wave Direct Action Corporation was Freedom Ride 1992, a bus tour to register voters in poor communities of color. The second wave can claim enormous influence on culture. Think of the rise of feminist artists, authors and musicians. Nor do younger feminists have a lock on sex. The first wave had Victoria Woodhull and ideas of “free love” in the 1800s, and the second wave brought the sexual revolution and “pro-sex” feminists, such as Betty Dodson. Cathryn Bailey writes: It should be emphasized again that second wave feminism is regarded as a definable phenomenon, as embodying a more or less coherent set of values and ideas which can be recognized and then transcended. Yet even a cursory look at the literature of the feminism of the 1970s and 1980s undermines this assumption. Introductory feminist texts, for example, have long struggled to gather coherently the myriad theoretical perspectives from which feminists have approached problems. Such perspectives have been described, for instance, as Radical Feminism, Liberal Feminism, Marxist Feminism, Womanism, Lesbian Feminism, and so on. The fact that there is no one feminism has been apparent for some time. Wikipedia says the third wave encompasses virtually every leftish political theory since the 1980s. If so, someone needs to pass out cheat sheets because I guarantee not everyone who identifies with the third wave can rattle off the definition of post-structuralism or queer theory, for example. Nevertheless, some third-wavers do suggest that feminism = fighting all oppressions, as I mentioned in this post. See also the Third Wave Foundation and the link above for Rebecca Walker. No feminist could argue against her organization's first project, registering poor people of color to vote. But ... what if the newly registered people vote against gay rights, for example? In my state, there's some concern that a higher black turnout in this election might mean we get stuck with a constitutional amendment barring same-sex unions. The world is frustrating in its complexity. Not everyone sees the same oppressions or the same solutions. Many have described the second and third waves as a mother-daughter split. Does that mean that every generation gets its own wave? Or, that there will be no conflict between third-wave mothers and their daughters? An ethical negotiation of the relationship between generations requires us to recognize and resist the vicious circle of contempt.That quote comes from Madelyn Detloff, who also notes that, in academics, “one’s work must be ‘original,’ meaning that it must present the appearance of newness, which is often achieved by attacking the old.” This goes beyond universities. People must claim new ideas, if not new identities, to attract members and money to their organizations, sell books or attract the media. Thus, women who want to make their mark may feel the need to set themselves apart from the women who went before, and older women may welcome younger voices who can make their enterprises look hip, new and attractive. There has been discussion here and elsewhere about a fourth wave. There's even a blog by that name. I think I'd rather work issue by issue, cobbling together whatever coalition I can. "Feminist" is enough of a label for me. |
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Talking About Blasphemy...
This news item from Afghanistan fits rather well with the discussion in my yesterday's post about women and religion. In that I pointed out the enormous difficulties in debating women's rights with fundamentalists of any stripe. This is the sort of thing that can happen when things get very nasty:
As the linked article points out, Kambakhsh may have been harassed because of his brother's actions. Nevertheless, the lesson to be learned from this court case inside Afghanistan is a fairly obvious one. By the way, didn't we liberate the women in Afghanistan? I distinctly remember something about that. |
I Laughed And Laughed
Until I cried. Because this really is the most hilarious thing I have read recently:
And this is the guy the Congress critters called "the Oracle"? Bwahahah! Maybe this is funny only to economists. |
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
3. Our Father Who Art In Heaven
![]() This is the third post in my series about the simple reasons why I became a feminist and why feminism is still needed. The first one was about the right to go out and the second one about the invisibility of women as human beings. This one is about religion. About gods. About guy gods. First the first required statement: There are female-centered religions, such as some forms of Wicca, and there are goddesses in many other religions, too, most notably Hinduism. But Christianity is a guy religion. Islam is a guy religion. Judaism is a guy religion. Even Buddhism is less than equal in its treatment of women and Taoism has branches which explicitly interpret the yin energy (or the "female" energy) as inferior to the yang energy (or the "male" energy). And the boss god in Hinduism is male. Most women in this world worship male gods. Then the second required statement: Yes, the treatment of women in some of those guy religions has greatly improved. We can now have female ministers in Christianity (though not in Catholicism) and female rabbis in Judaism (though not in most Orthodox synagogues). As far as I know there are no female mullahs in Islam. And yes, many modern believers don't view their god as male any longer. But most of the holy writings of Christianity, Islam and Judaism do. Then the third required statement: All I write about religion in this post is based on a sociological view of religion, or the idea that "man created God in his own image." I'm not going to present my theological views here (though you may notice that I myself am the goddess of snakes, so there). Remember the alien from outer space I pretend to be for the purposes of this series? Suppose that I have just arrived on earth and am eager to learn about the human religions. A kind earthling has given me the names of the possible members of a nuclear family: father, mother, daughter and son, and one such nuclear family takes me to their church on a lovely autumn Sunday. While in that church I learn that the family worships the Father and the Son. I also learn that it does not worship the mother or the daughter. This I, the alien, find rather informative and shocking. But my nuclear family hosts don't see any of this. For them the idea of a patriarchal religion is natural and normal. Even the word "priestess" must refer to some ancient magical superstition, something that all good believers have forsaken. This example is taken from Christianity, but similar examples apply to all the major guy religions. As Rita Mae Brown once stated: "If God is He then "he" is God." Why would any of this matter for a feminist? Aren't we (in this country, at least) free to choose our religion or to have none at all? Why not just dance wildly in a Wiccan circle for the goddess and let other people believe what they will? That would be very nice. But reality has the unfortunate effect of forcing other people's religious beliefs on us, beginning from the day we are born. A girl born into a fundamentalist Christian, Jewish or Muslim family will not be brought up to Wiccan beliefs. She will be brought up to believe that her role is to submit. And being born into a non-fundamentalist family is not going to keep a woman safe from the patriarchal religious beliefs. Those beliefs fuel much warfare, they fuel the traditional cultures of many countries. They fuel the killings of women who dare to go out in Afghanistan. They fuel some political movements in this country. They fuel. For all these reasons our inquiring alien wants to learn more about patriarchal religions. What it finds is that not only are gods mostly male but that the organizations which worship them are also mostly male. It is as if women can worship only from a great distance, only through intermediaries. It is as if contact with women can pollute the gods themselves. (Well, the alien is a fanciful one and likes poetic terms.) It also finds that most holy writings contain scattered statements about the inferiority of women, presumably straight out of the mouth of a guy god, and separate sets of rules for women, over and above the rules that are given for "everyone." These rules, astonishingly, tend not to be about the women's relation to the god but about the women's relations to men. In that sense they are not religious rules but political or sociological rules, guaranteed to keep women in submission not to god but to men. Finally, our visiting alien (being a brave one) goes out to debate religion with a bunch of fundamentalists from different religions. Poor, poor alien. It finds out what happens to anyone who starts debating religion with a fundamentalist: This cannot be done, because a literal fundamentalist believes that everything written in his or her holy book has come straight from the mouth of a living god. To debate anything in those books is blasphemy, because you are debating God. Poor alien. It is stuck in this theological trap. Stuck like a fly in flypaper. But notice how cleverly this trap works against anything feminist? If God Himself has decreed that women should submit to men who are lowly women to say otherwise? ----- For a much shorter summary of this post, just reverse the situation and imagine an earth where almost every important deity is female, where all the major monotheistic religions worship the Mother and where the Christians also pay homage to the Daughter. How would all that look, sound, smell and feel to male human beings? |
Clothes Horses
Apparently the clothes of the Palin family have cost the RNC more than $150,000 this campaign season. That's a lot of money, of course, a lot, but then the RNC is dressing a family of seven for public appearances. This still comes to more than $20,000 per head, assuming that the money was divided equally between all family members' clothes. Most of it is probably spent on Sarah Palin's wardrobe. It's possible to view this little item from two different angles, one being the usual one which points out that large amounts of money have been spent on her clothes. She's a clothes horse! Also, the money spent seems exorbitantly high and such uses of donors' money questionable. The other angle that opens up for us is to think about the likely clothes costs of male and female politicians. If I was running for a nationwide political office in this country, what would I need to wear? My usual scales would be totally insufficient and so would my old dog-walking or house painting outfits. I'd need to wear suits, with all the accessories to those. OK. So do men need to wear suits, too. But here's the difference: We don't expect male politicians to wear a different suit every time they are photographed. We pretty much do expect female politicians to do just that, and the suits must be different enough from each other to photograph as "different." That means not just quite a few suits but also matching shoes, tops, bags and so on. All that adds up to a lot more than, say, five dark suits for a guy with the shirts and ties to match. You can probably get away with just a few pairs of shoes, too. This rule is not a rigid one. I think it would be possible for a woman politician to campaign in just a handful of dark suits, just like the men do. But she'd be taken to task on all those fashion pages for her poor fashion sense. Someone would write an article about her boring suits. Someone else would ask if she's denying her essential femininity in the way she dresses or if she really would like to be a guy. The hair and the face. That's where the real cost differences open up, because a male hairstyle on a woman is certainly interpreted as "political," and the female hairstyles cost a lot more in upkeep. Make-up can cost almost as much as you wish to sink into your face. I wonder if anyone has done a study of the clothing costs of politicians. You know, the kind of "basic package" needed to start campaigning. My guess is that the cost of such a basic package is higher for women than for men. Oh, I almost forgot. There's a third angle to this study, too, and that is to look at other types of candidate expenses. Things like dining out and such. Might be well worth doing, for those who need to know where the money goes. |
Rachel Speaks.
This is very enjoyable: Isn't it weird how the opportunity of seeing two women running-while-female in politics has taught us so much about the horrors of liberal feminism but approximately nothing about the very lively state of sexism in this country? |
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Sneaky Traps We Set
You have probably seen this video of Michelle Bachmann wondering about the anti-Americanism of Barack Obama and liberals in general while being interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball. Bachmann suggests that the press should research all Congress critters to find out which of them are anti-American. Mmm. Bachmann's statements haven't exactly helped her (though they have done wonders for her political opponent), so it's not that hard to understand that she saw the interview from the point of view of a poor rabbit or deer which accidentally stepped into a horrible trap:
Very funny. Except that the trap consisted of Matthews asking her a question. Which she then answered and went on answering. So it wasn't an awful trap which snapped around her foot, it was her mouth. ---- Star Tribune link thanks to AndyMN. |
Sign Up Here For The Liberal Feminist Agenda For America!
This video of McCain talking about the liberal feminist agenda is delicious (via Feministing): So McCain's conversion to feminism didn't last very long, eh? Too bad. I loved that phrase "the liberal feminist agenda for America"! It makes me feel so powerful and dangerous. What ever might I do when I get to rule this country? Well, first all men must wear high heels and purple eye shadow, of course, because feminazi is really code for "effeminaze"! Then I shall decree padded codpieces, because we can't allow that floating to distract hard-working women in public places. Or depending on how I feel when I wake up in the morning (in the White House, natch) I might decree that men must wear nothing but their underpants! I can hardly wait for the time when I and my sisters will be the overladies of this land. |
Taxation Without Representation
There's a silly argument going around about taxes and especially about Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of working families. Hilzoy gives a good summary of the issues:
It is a silly argument, because what Obama's election promise (always to be remembered as an election promise) talks about is something to do with "working families", not with "all Americans." Lots of Americans are children, for one thing, and "families" often contain more than one person and some of those other members of the family are not actually paying income tax even though the family on the whole is. In short, "American working families" is a different counting concept than "Americans." They are both pretty fuzzy concepts, though, when it comes to defining who pays taxes in this country. More generally, Americans pay all sorts of taxes, not just the federal income tax. There are payroll taxes, property taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes and so on. The argument is silly not only for those reasons, but also because presidential candidates always promise the moon, on platter with parsley nicely next to it, and we know this. McCain's campaign promises have a small mathematics problem, too. Or rather, not so small a problem. |
Monday, October 20, 2008
Fareed Zakaria Endorses Obama
Interesting. The end of his piece is very touching:
Zakaria's biography tells us this:
|
2. The Planet Of The Guys. Oh, With Gals, Too, Naturally.
This is the second post in my series about the very simple and basic reasons why I became a feminist and why I still see lots of work for feminism. You can read the first post here. There will be more posts and they are not in any particular ranking by value of importance. This series differs from my usual writing style. I'm trying to let the immediate response come through and to use other parts of my mind and memory more than the analytical machine I mostly employ. I'm trying to view this planet from the outside, to ask questions about the taste of the water we drink and the color of the air we breathe. This is hard to do, because each and everyone of us is immersed in the systems in which we live and we don't see them as systems. Please remember that, especially if you start feeling that I'm accusing individual men or women of what I discuss here. Let us begin by looking at two photographs of powerful people from the Western world: ![]() ![]() Never mind that the top picture shows George Bush signing an anti-abortion bill and never mind that I could have found pictures with powerful women included. Instead, ask yourself how you would view pictures like this if every single person in them was female? You would view them as pictures of women. But unless you are forewarned (as you are in this post) you might very easily regard the above pictures as just pictures of human beings (well, as almost-all-white, middle-aged powerful people). Being male is the default value for the category "human." Now consider the following two pictures. These are fairly iconic ones and we all know what they are intended to convey: ![]() ![]() Great moments in the history of man, right? Now do this thought experiment: Change the sex of the people in the pictures and ask yourself if you still see them as reflecting all humankind. Didn't we do this crap once before, some of you might ask. We now carefully write "he or she" (though hardly ever "she or he") and the conservatives whine about how the Second Wave feminists broke the language and took away their freedoms to insult, too. Isn't all this an old topic not worthy of attention? I once thought that all that identifying "man" with "man" was over, but my years on the Internet have taken away that illusion. This planet is still very much the planet of the guys (though not the planet of ALL the guys or guys of all races) in the sense that we might very well imagine an alien from outer space writing home about the "citizens of Earth and their wives," especially if that alien had spent too much time reading evolutionary psychology or following the 2008 U.S. presidential election campaigns. Here is my artistic summary of the way we view human beings. The top picture is how we DON'T view human beings. The bottom picture is how we DO view human beings: ![]() Neat, huh? The artwork, I mean. The rest is not so great. Try a few thought experiments, though, and you will see that I got the picture right. This explains why "gender" seems to be something only women have (just check the bottom graph) and why all gender-related problems appear to be women's problems. The other things which are correlated with gender but not necessarily to women's disadvantage (such as violence) are seen as human problems. The graph also explains why I have had such difficulty debating certain issues during the Democratic primaries. I was using the top graph as the frame in my mind while the person I was debating was using the bottom graph. In that graph men's issues are always human issues, whereas women's issues are not. Bringing up an issue that applies to women is seen as asking for special rights and special considerations which other people don't get. An alien from outer space might not observe all this but such an alien would certainly observe the predominance of men in our cultural discourse. The alien might also notice that it's not gender alone which defines who is seen as the "default human being" (race has lots to do with it, too) and had that same alien visited this planet earlier it might be quite surprised with the amount of progress we have made in gender equality. On the other hand, women still are the numerical majority in this world. That those most numerous are not the default for human beings is worth thinking about. |
Digby In The Limelight
The great Digby was interviewed in the LA Times. The interview is a fascinating read and even has some feminist food for thought. |
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Are we hard-wired to be mean, too? (by Suzie)
In an interview, once again, Gurian, who isn't a scientist, talks as if every scientist knows that males and females think and act differently because their brains are different. That’s not political, he assures us. Those are just the facts! Girls are now succeeding so much in school and college, but when they get into the workplace, the stuff that made them successful in high school and college isn't translating - especially if they are in a field that has any kind of science side to it. Another big area is the emotional and relational ... Girls and women do process more emotive and sensorial data. That makes them better in writing English papers, but they also get caught up in relational aggression and confusion in the workplace.Let’s see, women don’t do as well in the workplace because our brains aren’t as good at science and, um, we’re mean. Why, oh, why, are women paying this man to speak to them? The Ophelia Project was begun to “increase social and emotional support for adolescent girls,” but it changed its focus to “relational aggression,” such as “exclusion, malicious gossip and rumor spreading, teasing and name calling.” As our research progressed, we found that there are no gender effects when it comes to relational aggression. Today's boys need our help just as much as today's girls.This seems part of the thinking that women do just as much harm to each other and to men as men do to women. Even if you think this is true, it ignores the context of a society in which men hold almost all of the top positions, and thus, more power. (Check out this site, with explains mean girls with pictures.) |
Norman McLaren
| Several weeks ago Phila posted a link to a You Tube of one of Norman McLaren’s experimental films. Here’s another Synchromy Synchromie 1971 and a film, I believe, made by a video artist admirer Because of Norman McLaren. McLaren was a master of directly drawing on film stock, making both the image and sounds that way. I think almost all his work was funded by the National Film Board of Canada, proof that in some countries the government funding of the arts produces great and innovative art. There is a lot of his work posted on You Tube, though I haven’t found the one that starts with him dropping a ball to have it multiply in amazing ways. I wonder if that could have inspired the vault scene in the last Harry Potter book. McLaren’s inspiration and technique seem to have multiplied readily too. You can watch one after another and be amazed at their diversity. posted by Anthony McCarthy |
Colin Powell backs Obama
Wow, here's a surprise that's not a surprise. I'm trying to figure out if I'm reaching for the word "hypocrisy" or the word "redemption" when I feel around for the right way to describe one of the main players who enabled Bush's homocidal, sociopathic intentions in the Middle East who has now flipped sides to back a candidate who was against the war from the start and now promises aggressive moves toward and unequivocal end. I've always liked Colin Powell despite it all. I'll go with redemption. Be interesting to see if Condoleeza Rice follows suit. Not holding any breath. P.S. In other news, CNN's down-ticket headline reads "McCain snags key endorsement." That key endorsement? The Tampa Tribune. I don't for a moment rest complacent on any laurels (not with the grand clusterf*** that is our voter system throwing the newly registered and long-time voters alike off the rolls), but this is just getting sadder and sadder for the McCain camp, isn't it? Obama snags the former Republican Secretary of State, McCain gets himself Florida newspaper endorsement. Almost feel sorry for the guy. Except not. |
Our Blood Our Vote by Anthony McCarthy
| The other day I heard a member of the Washington Press Corps talk about how Iraq, now allegedly pacified by “The Surge” has fallen out of notice. It was yawningly observed that it’s barely registering in the attention of the American Public. You wonder how it escaped the notice of the American Public that people are still getting killed there and that the bribes paid to pacify many of the former insurgents are hardly sustainable in our present economy. Could be because, in line with the doctrine that “The Surge” has been an indisputable success*, the media hasn’t done much in the way of reporting this. These well paid members of the press were obviously bored by the subject. I am not certain but none of the members of the DC press taking part in that discussion mentioned their children or loved ones being in harms way in Iraq. I am certain that the survivors of those still dying and those who have been maimed are somewhat more interested than the jaded talking heads. But that’s just as a prelude to the substance of this piece. We can't ignore this any longer. It's not exciting, it's not trendy, it's not sexy, it's entirely clear how it could be fixed so no one is going to gain a reputation for brilliance and become the toast of the scribbling class over it. It's only a question of whether the United States is a nation of laws and not of richmen, a democracy of a despotic oligarchy. - We need one national ballot form for the national constitutional offices, President, Vice-President, Senator, Congressman. These are the only four offices that have a direct impact on us all. The citizens of the entire country have a right to these four offices being filled in a completely honest way. Everyone has a right to know that every congressman was chosen honestly, even in the district farthest from where they live. They make the laws that govern all of us. There is an overriding interest in the citizens of the entire country having an honestly chosen federal government strong enough to overcome constitutional objections. This is THE question of national integrity, not a detail of petty federalism. - We need one form of ballot for those offices, no butterflies, no esthetic tampering. One form that a child learns in fourth grade and that doesn't change for as long as our form of government doesn't change. President, Vice-President, Congressman, Senator. One ballot for each office if there are that many candidates in a district but one form that is as familiar to a voter as a Lincoln penny. - We need those ballots to be on paper, marked clearly by hand with an X or a check mark, either a valid mark. One ballot form, one thing for the voter to do. Both have worked for decades and there is no reason to fool with it. People unable to mark their own ballots is an issue, but it is one that can be solved without recourse to unreliable machine voting. - We need them to be counted by hand with observers from all parties. Those ballots are to be counted honestly, everywhere, every time. If local officials can't run a clean election it will be run by a higher level of government. If you don't like that, look at those clean, honest, simple and quick elections they've got in Canada run by Elections Canada. You can go to their web site and see how those practical people have managed simple methods for dealing with problems of disabled voters. Look now before the Conservative government starts trying to copy cat the United States to steal elections for themselves. They manage to pull it off in a matter of weeks, our system, designed for corruption, can’t get it right in as many months. No electronic voting for the federal constitutional offices is to be tolerated. We have seen that electronic voting and vote tabulation is certain to give an inaccurate count and that's even when it isn't rigged to steal the election. The results of two almost certainly stolen presidential elections in a row are all the proof anyone needs that a crooked election gives us a crooked government. We might get a crook in an honest election, we are certain to get one from a crooked election. The elections of 2000 and 2004 have given us the disaster of Iraq and will produce at least one more disaster, probably in Iran. The Republicans who stole these elections are costing us in blood, in honor and in money. We cannot afford to nickel and dime democracy, the cost is staggeringly high if we continue to cheat ourselves out of honest elections. Computers and modern research have allowed the Republican Party to destroy the last and best hope for a free people to govern themselves. We aren't living in an age where genteel comity and a bit of indulgence of petty theft can be smiled at. If the DC-NY scribblers and the law professors had the blood of their children and themselves at risk they might see it more clearly. It is only a matter of who lives and who dies. * I’m going to predict that what Petraeus said about the need to concentrate on Afghanistan, talking with those counted as enemies, is a bit of bet hedging because he suspects John McCain is not going to be his boss next year. I suspect that when “The Surge” is no longer needed as political cover by the Republicans it will be allowed to lapse and the resulting renewal of the normal course of chaos in post-Bush II Iraq will make Bush I’s lame duck Somalia intervention, a move tailor made to cause problems for the Clinton administration, look like a minor transition prank. Updated from June 2006 Further Update: If we are lucky and Barack Obama is elected president with an effective majority in the legislative branches we have to force them to finally make the vote in the whole country secure. After listening to Mark Crispin Miller on Bill Moyers show Friday, I think it should be a federal law that the production, sale and use of non-secure voting apparatus is prohibited and illegal. They pose a far greater risk to The People of the United States than marijuana or many other devices which are prohibited by law. I would also advise Barack Obama to screen potential Supreme Court and federal court nominees on their fidelity to this absolutely basic part of representative democracy. Barack Obama is eminently qualified in ways that white men are not to understand the vital necessity of securing the equal access to the vote. No one who holds that The Peoples’ right to vote is optional is fit to serve in any post in government, least of all the courts. If he needs to be reminded he should review the late Barbara Jordan’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing the confirmation of Robert Bork . If he needs comic relief, he should review the interchange between her and Gordon Humphry (R-NH). Hearing the man who was regularly voted the dimmest bulb in the Senate try to go up against that giant of intellect and experience was quite strange. That is if we’re lucky this should be done. If we aren’t and John McCain is either elected or imposed on us, securing the vote is a practical impossibility, perhaps for the rest of our lives. |
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Suppression Of Clearly Bigoted Words Is A Necessary Step by Anthony McCarthy
| As entire classes of people are still subjected to destructive inequality and the protest against that inequality has been made to seem passé, the far easier to assert equality of words seems to have become entrenched as an assumption. This is, to not mince words, stupid. Words aren’t enumerated as a class having rights under the Bill of Rights, The Civil Rights amendments or the Civil Rights Act, they are not all created equal. They are not all “perfectly good words”. Some of them should be suppressed. Some should be hunted to extinction, remaining only as mounted, academic specimens. Achieving the suppression of the language of bigotry is straight forward, you suppress it. You make the use of the words uncomfortable and an invitation to be hassled. For example, the blog boys use the word “cunt”. The way to make them uncomfortable is to constantly call them on it when they use it. It’s simple as that. They refer to women in that way, you make that uncomfortable for them, you harass them whenever they say it. You make it not worth their wile to use the word. When they whine about your calling them on it, you just do it anyway. They pout about you ruining their fun and boy bonding, you ignore it and keep calling them on it while taking pleasure at their discomfort. Their discomfort is a sign your plan is working, I see nothing wrong with enjoying it, privately. Of course, you've got to give up using language like that yourself, you've got to have credibility. Whenever you propose something like this you can count on two things happening. The first is the invocation of “freedom of speech” or “The First Amendment”. I’m happy to report to you that we are not bound in our personal lives to uphold the “speech rights” of bigots. As I never tire of pointing out, we are not the government. You’d think the left has been out of power long enough to not suffer from that mistaken idea. If a commercial establishment can suppress the use of profane language on its property, individual people certainly have that right in the common ground of life. Those we target for this kind of coercion have no recourse to constitutional relief from us. When it comes to bigots, it’s a mistake to worry about their right to promote the violation of other peoples’ rights. Let them do the worrying. And it gets better, there is no reason for us to treat bigotry as equal to other modes of human interaction. It intentionally hurts people, it has no rightful place in the world. And, let it not be forgotten, strident objection to hateful words is just as much an expression as bigotry, only it doesn’t try to harm entire groups of people on the basis of who they are. The second thing brought up is whether or not it is the most important issue, the matter of priorities. Who knows what’s “most important”? This election season has certainly shown that it isn’t a little problem, IT HURTS MEMBERS OF OUR CAUCUS. If the protection from harm to our members isn’t a priority for us then we’ve got to rearrange our priorities. It also divides the left, it harms our efforts to make progress. This is a big deal, as well, because it prevents other important things from happening. This is a fact to use against blog bigots as well. Calling Ann Coulter sexist names doesn’t hurt her but it hurts her opposition which then has to deal with the division of the left due to the childishness of these jerks. It’s not as if we’ve got a rip roaring huge majority to work with as it is and can spare the members or time spent trying to patch things up. If anyone wants to be on the left, the minimal requirement is that they not divide and distract those who are doing the real work and so enable our opponents. If they choose to run their mouths at our expense, kick them out. It’s not as if the Coulters of the world aren’t vulnerable onhg the basis of things they say, themselves, many of those on the grounds of bigotry. Being a bigot in response weakens your position against someone like her. Those words and similar ones shouldn’t be tolerated no matter what comedian or pop star has used them in their act, no matter how gratifyingly transgressive they make the user feel. People using them have to be made to feel too hot to mistake it as ‘cool’. The soft-handed, man-talkin’, tough guys who, in reality, risk nothing in life more serious than repetitive stress should be derided and made to feel the fools they are. Not using those words is a part of removing bad habits of thinking from the common discourse. If I was planning a strategy I’d say go after the clear cut offenses first, the easiest ones to target. Just getting rid of those annoyances would be worth the effort, I’d think. I don’t want people thinking in those terms and I do think that is important. I don’t think pay equity or Title Nine or the equal right to public accommodation would have ever become law if those terms were an acceptable default way to think about the covered classes in the voting public. It was certainly no coincidence that gay rights legislation finally started making it out of committees as it became less acceptable to target us with bigoted language and that those reforms fail in those places where verbal gay bashing is still tolerated It really matters. I’ve never been much on adopting the language of the enemy. I never believed that it would subvert the intentions of the ones who really meant it. You can’t redeem a term of hatred in common use by using it yourself, you can’t capture it and change its meaning. Words obtain their meaning by their history and their contemporary common use. Words of bigotry are defined by bigots who use them. No matter what the language-pop-sci folk would lead you to believe. The use of bigotry in “comedy” isn’t funny, even when used by otherwise funny comedians. Though it will get you a cheap laugh from other schmucks. Hearing bigotry freely expressed makes it seem acceptable and it influences the thinking of those who might go either way. It gives permission. It certainly snowballed on the blogs of the left in ways I’d never have believed before last year. It was a real shock that even anti-gay invective is less accepted than the most revolting terms of misogyny. But I’ve also seen real racism, religious bigotry, ethnic bigotry and other forms of expression destructive of the effort to promote real equality and freedom. It all has to be called, it’s not as if we don’t have real ideas and problems that need to be addressed. Making all forms of bigotry out of bounds is helpful to making any form of bigotry unacceptable. The partial acceptance of bigotry is a stupid blunder. I am just about certain that the real names of the ideals of liberalism, freedom, equality, yes, especially, love, would be considered more outré than the words of real, explicit, misogyny on some blogs of the left. And racism on others, While that might be due to their overuse in some rather gooey contexts, their intrinsically negative context doesn’t seem to have rendered the hateful words unfashionable in the same way. Though they’ve certainly gotten old. It's one of the more irrational aspects of this that those words, the sure sign of childish, lazy thinking, are, somehow, mistaken to be a sign of adulthood. I don't know what you can do about that except to refuse to go along with that stupid idea. So feel free to be inventive, be clever, be scathing in your suppression of the “c” word and others worthy of destruction. If you don't like it, you have every right to say so. And do it every time. Addendum: There is a third thing that can happen in this kind of effort. I firmly suspect that there is a constant temptation in people to be as bad as they figure they can get away with, though some people regularly seem to be able to resist. This effort can’t be seen as a license to do another stupid, divisive and time wasting* thing, inventing convenient, imaginary implied slights. In our pop-psych addled age, the temptation of those on the losing end of an argument is sometimes to go from what’s explicitly stated to conveniently asserting things like “body language” and “unconscious intentions”, which aren’t stated explicitly. Usually it is the minutia of nuance beloved of some leftists that elicits that response rather than in the important, commonly agreed to, difference. Occult, interior motives are asserted to be the unseen taint, the mark of the bad seed, in otherwise sound leftists, asserting their otherwise reasoned arguments to be functionally unsound for the vaguest of reasons. I’d say that splitting those hairs should wait until the explicit expression of bigotry is effectively eliminated. That’s going to be a big enough job to start with. Effectively targeting those who are explicit bigots might help to eliminate those in the second tier of bigoted expression without spending time on them. As anyone who has ever played cards knows, it’s a hallmark of the unexpressed idea that you really don’t know what it might mean or even if it’s there to begin with. Maybe it exists only in your imagination. If it’s really there it will find explicit expression, if it doesn’t you are free to assume that the interpretation more favorable to you is what was intended all along and to act accordingly. I’ve found that assuming that sometimes has the gratifying result of avoiding a pointless argument and sometimes actually turns things in a more productive direction than angry confrontation over the imagined slight. On many occasions, when the assumed interior intention becomes clear, it was quite harmless anyway. * I’ve noticed in meetings of non-profits something like this often takes the form of “not wanting to set a precedent”. Who hasn’t sat though twenty-five minute of loftily vicious and absurd argument about just such a “precedent” issue? Well, unless explicitly stated, non-profits can pick and choose on the basis of individual merits and their own contemporary situation without worrying about precedents of that kind. I’ve never yet seen the bylaws of one that forbids that. |
Friday, October 17, 2008
Obama, Ayers and the New Left (by Suzie)
Later in this post, I also want to discuss how the New Left’s vision of feminism influences the discourse these days. Conservatives may think all ’60s radicals thought alike, but people on the left should know that sexism among radicals helped spark the women’s liberation movement, and that tension remains. Jesse Lemisch, history professor emeritus of City University of New York, wrote that Ayers’ 2001 memoir "Fugitive Days" is full of archaic sexism, littered with boasts of Ayers's sexual achievements, utterly untouched by feminism. ... "Hostility to feminism," writes Dan Berger in a new history of Weather, "characterized the organization from the beginning" …Daisy’s Dead Air calls Ayers a boring dork. what? huh!? ... he is this big dangerous "terrorist" in a Sarah Palin speech ... while his wife Bernadine, the one always running the joint, isn't mentioned at all, is she?Dohrn was a founder and leader of the Weathermen. Some of her old male colleagues still talk about her leadership in terms of sex appeal. "It's a completely sexist point of view," she says. "Nobody would talk that backward way about men. I find it outrageous, really outrageous, and I think women in all walks of life, not just in public life, still receive that dual treatment."In recent times, Dohrn also said: “I wish that I had bridged the feminist movement and the anti-war movement better than I did.” In addition to opposing the Vietnam War, Weathermen talked of white privilege, showing disdain for a lot of working-class whites whom they considered racist. Not surprisingly, they had little use for white, middle-class feminists. In 1970, Jo Freeman described a feminist divide: The original issue was whether the fledgling women's liberation movement would remain a branch of the radical left movement, or be an independent women's movement. … The New Left women's groups serve much the same function as traditional ladies auxiliaries.In 1969, for example, Dohrn had attacked the women’s movement for being middle class and for focusing on sexism, instead of “integrating (not submerging) the struggles of women into the broader revolutionary movement…” This critique echoes through feminism today, especially among academics and those who identify as the third wave. Many women think feminism must fight all oppressions equally, instead of focusing on gender. They think the feminism of the ’60s and ’70s benefited only middle-class white women, and they know little about the wide range of issues and activism back then. Whatever else the New Left accomplished, its vision of feminism took hold. |
How we define feminism (by Suzie)
“It is the study of, practice of, and consciousness of inequalities in society/history. This applies to race, gender, age, class, disability, sexual orientation, etc. I believe that each person should be able to live without oppression of any kind.” “It means fighting ALL oppressions for ALL minorities in the white male heterosexist society in which we live.”I hope all feminists oppose oppression. But I'd prefer that feminism focus on gender because not everyone fighting oppression will "remember the ladies." Focusing on gender does not mean ignoring the ways that it intersects with other factors. For example, when I work on behalf of sarcoma patients, I don't consider that feminism, even though half of them are women. But I do consider my work feminist when I look at ways that women with sarcoma may get short-changed in the health-care system. (Echidne has written on this topic, including this post.) |
Friday sunset blogging (by Suzie)
David Lubin, M.D., shot the historic Sulphur Springs Water Tower in Tampa. He notes that this photo is "real, no manipulation." |
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Hound That Did Not Bark In The Night
This is about the air quotes John McCain used when talking about whether the woman's health should be taken into account in deciding on late term abortions. The hounds? They are the mainstream media who much preferred to hang out with Joe the plumber. |
I. The Right To Go Out
This is the first post on a new series about the reasons why I am a feminist. My aim is to look at the lives of women on earth from a newly-fresh point of view, forgetting all those years of study and all those policies and soundbites and keywords. Instead, I want to go back to the very basics, to pretend that I have just landed on this planet and that I know nothing about humans except that they are usually divided into men and women, boys and girls. Why am I doing this? Because I have learned that those very basics have become so obscured that many men and women no longer see them at all, no longer regard sexism a problem and no longer think that misogyny is a serious matter. I learned this during many recent discussions about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, about sexism and racism in politics and about the post-feminist era we supposedly now inhabit. In one of those discussions this was said:
The reference here is to racial profiling, and it is a serious problem. So is religious profiling of Muslims or those who are suspected of being Muslims or Arabs. It's not my intention to downplay the particular problems of racial, religious or even gender-based (read: male) police profiling. But I was dumbstruck by this comment, just dumbstruck, because my first reaction was that women would be a lot less likely to be out driving their cars in the first place, especially alone or late at night. My second reaction was the realization that people mostly don't see that female fear of the outside as a civil rights issue or a human rights issue. It's just How Things Are. Yet the difference in our ability to go out, alone and fairly safely, is highly dependent on whether we are men or women. In some societies women are not allowed to go out alone at all, but only in the company of a male relative. In other societies women may be allowed to go the stores and such on their own but cannot travel abroad without their husband's permission. In many societies women who go out alone are regarded as prostitutes or fair game for any sexual molester. In most societies women who go out alone at night are at greater risk than men who go out alone, because women have to deal not only with the risk of getting mugged but also with the risk of getting raped. They are seen as prey. So women adjust to this, accommodate themselves to this, stay at home and agree to live lesser lives because of their sex. I have never met a woman who isn't aware of this difference, who isn't used to carefully mapping out routes to new places, who isn't cautious about going anywhere at night on her own. But despite this and all those take-back-the-night marches the idea that women should somehow have the right to go out alone and not be at any greater risk than anyone else is -- what? A stupid idea? Impossibly idealistic? Whatever it is it is also a human rights issue. But for some reason we have lost sight of that and other similar issues I will cover in this series. |
On Joe the Plumber
The media has decided that Joe the plumber is the crystallizing moment of the third debate. It's all very silly, because Joe voted for McCain in the primaries (so how undecided is he?) and because nobody seems to know if the 250,000 dollars he mentions as his income is revenue or profit (which is what he'd be actually taxed on) and so on. Still, we are supposed to see Joe as the composite American, the average guy, whose life is exactly like the lives of everybody else! Exactly! Except that Joe is white and can never worry about the health exception to abortion, say. And I'd bet that people who write about how very average he is have rather little in common with Joe. |
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
My First Thought On The Last Debate
It is always extremely distasteful to watch two men discuss what should be done about abortion. Always, never mind what they say. Men don't have to worry about someone forcing pregnancy and/or childbirth on them, and I cannot help focusing on that fact whenever I have to watch an all-male debate on the topic. That John McCain then appeared to ridicule the idea of a health exception for women who want an abortion caused my scales to rise up and my fangs to protrude. More on the debate tomorrow. |
Ben Bernanke Must Have Read This Blog
Because he is finally calling for greater regulation:
I have written about the need for better regulation for a long time. In other news, Massachusetts is cutting back on spending. I can understand why, but this is about the worst time for a state government to do that, because it increases the economic shrinkage (make of that whatever you wish). In even further news, I will watch the debate tonight, but honest, I should be paid for doing that. I'm not a masochist. |
The Thirty Percent Solution
The fierce debate on comments threads further down this blog made me read this blog post on the 30% solution. The idea is to get enough women elected into the Congress, whatever their political views and platforms, to make the total number of women at least thirty percent. That way women's issues will not be neglected in the work of the Congress. As evidence of this it's possible to point out the work legislative organs do in countries where women have indeed reached that critical mass (which may or may not be 30%) where it's no longer possible to ignore them. On the face of it this proposal isn't that different from the work Emily's List and other similar organizations do. They all try to get more women elected so that our legislative institutions better reflect the actual population proportions of women and men. But the 30% solution is actually something much more radical: It advocates voting for women over men even when the women are anti-feminists in their beliefs and platforms, even when they advocate banning almost all forms of abortion, even when they might be opposed to federal parental leave or the right of women to sue employers or schools for sex discrimination. If I understand the idea correctly, the 30% solution would encourage me to vote for Ann Coulter if she ran for office, despite the fact that she'd prefer to see women's suffrage abolished, because she is a woman and her presence would make women's issues of greater concern to the Congress. I don't think Ann Coulter cares about women's issues at all. If thirty percent of the Congress consisted of Ann Coulter clones women would be in deeper trouble than now. It is certainly true that more women in politics are needed. But what those women stand for is also important. The countries which have at least thirty percent women in their legislative houses are rarely countries with a strong anti-woman fundamentalist minority of the type the United States has. Thus, those thirty percent blocs don't have many women whose mission in government appears to coincide with the mission of the Aunties in Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale: to keep other women under patriarchal control. The 30% solution seems to encourage all women to vote for the Aunties, just because they are women. It's as if their gender alone would make them sensitive to women's rights. There is a sense in which a thirty percent bloc of women (any women) in the Congress would almost automatically reduce sexism, but it's not in the legislative arena. Rather, as Virginia Valin points out in her book Why So Slow, once women stop being a small minority among the job applicants for a particular job, say, they also stop being seen first as women and only second as the workers with the necessary skills for the job. Having more female politicians changes the image of "a politician" people have and is likely to make the treatment of individual women fairer in Congress. Now, that would be nice. But not nice enough for me to root for the Aunties. |
That Such Poverty Could Exist
I once read a story about some British king a long time ago who saw a napkin ring somewhere and inquired about its possible uses. When a lackey explained that it was used for storing and identifying each family member's napkin between meals the king exclaimed:"That Such Poverty Can Exist!" The king's napkins were naturally changed, washed and ironed after every single meal. The story may be apocryphal, but it reflects something which is quite worrying about our current political system: To be a politician on the national level mostly requires that you are very wealthy. Once you are very wealthy you no longer truly understand how the poor live. Or even how the relatively affluent live. No health insurance? Just pay with a check! This story is what provoked these musings:
Of course all such events will be canceled right away and every single CEO will have to have a napkin ring! But this doesn't change the fact that the rich are different from the rest of us (as we are different from the very, very poor of this earth). To have the rich do most of our politicking isn't terribly smart. |
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Lessons From Economic History
Re-reading books can be fun. Here's John Kenneth Galbraith in Affluent Society discussing the post-war economic developments in the United States:
(I seem to have a British edition of the book.) Economic history also teaches us to not focus on every day's financial market numbers as signs of either recovery or not. We need data for longer time periods than that to tell what's happening, especially because volatility is to be expected in the kind of crisis situation we are facing now. |
Who Does God Root For?
I never thought I'd write a title like that one for a blog post. It sounds like blasphemy, even to a minor Greek goddess (of snakes, mind you, not of humans). Still, some men of god from the Islamic to the Christian religion are quite comfortable with the idea that their god is the stronger one, that their god is not the same god as the enemy's god, that their god would prefer to see those enemy humans squashed and destroyed for good. For good. Get it? So is the world full of gods who fight each other? I thought this was the assumption in only polytheistic religions (well, not necessarily the fighting bit). But if there indeed are several competing gods, are most human beings pawns on the divine chess board? And how do the bishops move? But I digress. In fact, I've digressed from the very beginning, because I really wanted to write about the related idea that god or gods very much care about who it is who will win the American presidential elections and that god or gods might even intervene by selecting the candidate or candidates which they love best. This sounds like theocracy. In any case, it appears that the fundamentalist god has selected Sarah Palin as his candidate. We know this because that god spoke to one human being and that human being told not only the Palins but us. See how it works? |
A Gift For You
Monday, October 13, 2008
The C.U.N.T. Guy
You can watch Roger Stone, a Republican political consultant, being interviewed on television about the great dangers of Barack Obama. He's the C.U.N.T. guy. He's totally kosher! No problem interviewing him on television after that C.U.N.T. thing. No, what he did is not at all sexist, you silly little goddess, and if it is, well, sexism is FUNNY and you have no sense of humor because you haven't been laid enough. Oh, and you're ugly, too. |
Mommy Dearest
![]() This is the name of a book by the adopted daughter of Joan Crawford, the movie star. The book argues that Crawford abused her child and in general was the Mother From Hell. The title has taken on a meaning of its own after that time, being used to denote Bad Mothers in general. Now, you can be a Bad Mother in so many ways that an ancient goddess must sit down and take a glass of nectar just to try to count the ways. For instance, you are a Bad Mother if you have too few children, because it means you are selfish. You are also a Bad Mother if you work for money. You are a Bad Mother if you don't have a husband and especially if you are on welfare. You are a Bad Mother if you have too many children. You are certainly a Bad Mother if you spend too much time away from your children, but you are also a Bad Mother if you hover over them. That's a Helicopter Mommy. The other kind is just a Mommy from Hell. You are a Bad Mother if you don't play your children classical music and chauffeur them from one child-enriching event to another, but you are also a Bad Mother if you don't let your children just hang out and be children. You are a Bad Mother if you don't protect your children against possible pederasts behind every bush and tree, but you are also a Bad Mother if you are overprotective. You are a Bad Mother if you don't encourage your child all the time, but then you are a Bad Mother if you spoil and pamper your children too much. Most importantly, you are a Very Bad Mother if you delegate any of the childcare duties to another adult. Not that those duties are yours to delegate, despite the implicit assumption that it is the mothers who are responsible. They still can't delegate. Of course there are bad mothers, just as there are bad fathers. But it's lots easier to qualify as a bad mother than a bad father and almost impossible not to qualify as a Bad Mother in someone's eyes. This might not matter much if it wasn't the case that mothering is something everyone and his nephew think they understand well enough to criticize from the outside. Mothering has no privacy boundaries in this culture, and the only type of mothering that could not be criticized is perfection. Oddly enough, you don't even have to be a mother to earn the title of "Mommy Dearest." Some years ago the Washington Post reported on a study which analyzed the child-rearing worth of women who had married men who already had children from a previous marriage. These second wives, according to the study, were the people who were responsible for the childcare of their husband's children when those children visited, not the fathers themselves. The report on the study was titled "Mommy Dearest!" Now you can be a Bad Mother without even being a mother and without ever realizing that you are viewed as one. Neat. ----- This post has been fertilized by the criticisms of Sarah Palin's mothering skills I have seen in all sorts of unexpected places, stretching from feminist listserves to the comments threads of progressive blogs. It was nurtured by the realization I had that Joe Biden could be commended for being a single-father who didn't give up on his high-flying political career while his sons were recovering from the horrible car accident that killed his wife and daughter, but that an imaginary Jane Biden would not have been so commended, because women still can't delegate parenting (without being judged for that) while men can. The picture is of a mommy doggie, having a well-deserved siesta in the tropics. Courtesy of pj. |
Michelin Stars And Other Angry Thoughts
Today a radio program interviewed all sorts of restaurant owners and chefs who have been given those much-coveted Michelin stars in the U.S.. All those interviewed were men, on both sides of the awarding process. I'm sure that female chefs and restaurant owners have also received those delicious little stars, but not in any reasonable proportion to the numbers of women actually cooking on this earth. And why does listening to that show make me angry? Because. Because imagine that there was something like the Michelin Star system for the best authors of books about how to take care of your infant or your young child. What do you think the sex distribution of those star-awardees would be? Once again, it would be almost completely male. Here's the reason for my anger: Those who believe that the two sexes have inherently different tasks in this world (whether for god-given or genetic reasons) always assign women the tasks of cooking and child-rearing and nursing the sick. Yet the leading figures in these most womanly of fields are men. I have even read about radical feminists who eagerly consult books written by men on how to take care of their babies. Note that these men were never actually required to spend any hands-on time on childcare. They could become experts from a distance! Without actually spending years alone in a house with a child! It's not actually the gender of these "experts" that makes me angry, but the pretense that a sex-segregated society of the type both fundamentalists and some feminists imagine could ever be an equal society. It would most assuredly be nothing of the kind. Women would be segregated to their households and every household would have a male boss. To create an equal system under sex-segregation would require something like two separate countries, one for women and one for men, and the trade would consists of sperm parcels and the return of boy babies, with some money and resources also paid by the men given that women have to spend more energy in delivering the babies. I'm pretty sure that no religious fundamentalist anti-feminist would ever approve of such a system should it ever be feasible in any case which I doubt. My anger is over the pretense that "separate but equal" is possible for men and women under the present systems of cohabitation. It is not, and nothing good follows from pretending that it is. We have to learn to integrate the sexes better. |
Three Cheers For Paul Krugman
He just got the Nobel Prize in economics. Most of you know him much better as a political columnist at the New York Times, but it's really important to understand that he didn't get the prize for that. He got it for his squiggly (maths) work in international trade. I've met him in person and he seemed like a very modest and approachable guy. |
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Newsflash: Self-proclaimed hockey mom decidedly unpopular at actual hockey game (by Skylanda)
That Sarah "Pitbull with Lipstick" Palin would be booed on the Philadephia ice at the Flyers game on Saturday was entirely - almost boringly - predictable. It was predictable because Philadelphia is not exactly a Republican stronghold. It was predictable because booing anything on the ice is a de riguer part of any actual hockey game, the prelude to any actual hockey game, and - quite frequently - the post-victory festivities of any hockey game. One would think, as a, ya know, hockey mom and all, she would not have needed to be apprised of this phenomenon in advance. Which makes it kinda weird that she brought her school-aged kid onto the ice with her. Now, far be it for me to criticize Sarah Palin's mad mommy skillz; I've railed against this bizarre brand of sexism here and elsewhere, and I stand by that. I am also fully in favor of exposing kids to the great wide world of wacky humanity from more or less whatever tender age won't traumatize them into nightmares that you don't want to have to comfort them through at three in the morning, so I don't hold it against Palin on principle that she brought a six-ish year-old to a hockey game, even if the last hockey game I went to (in the terribly tame venue of a semi-pro team in the Pacific northwest) had more bloody noses and broken jaws than a Steven Segal movie - and that was just in the stands. (Though I do have to ask: geez, are these the same people who were criticizing the Obamas for exploiting their two daughters with a controlled, pre-filmed TV spot?) What is so jarring is that anyone at all was surprised by the jeers, the boos, the prevalence of middle fingers, the whole crazy drunken scene. Or that anyone is so outraged by it. Or that anyone buys that the kid was brought for any reason other than to try (unsuccessfully) to preempt the absolutely assinine specter of a self-proclaimed hockey mom showing up to a city in which she is rabidly unpopular and expecting the rowdiest crowds this side of a British soccer match on a national holiday to treat her daughter like a lady. Moreover, that anyone is actually trying to compare jeering Palin at a pro sports venue to the frightening and reactionary display exhibited by McCain supporters last week. You remember - that was the rally where reporters openly filmed McCain supporters shouting that Obama is a terrorist (and if you don't remember, scroll down a few days to echidne's post for a five-minute few screen shot of the rally in question), and another in Florida where "Kill him!" was heard echoing in the crowd, though with some apparent ambiguity as to whom we should actually be lynching on behalf of the shouter of said threat. Racist, threatening epithets hurled by people in political venues does not equal being booed on the ice at a hockey game. There are some salient differences, in case one needs to hear these pointed out. One is that no one - at least by all reports, including those from Fox News - made threatening remarks toward Palin. Two is that no one equated her with terrorism due to the nature of her middle name (Obama's is Hussein, spoken of course with a sort of spit and acid meant to make clear that his sort is not welcome around these parts). The third is that if you choose to appear in a venue where booing is practically a rite of honor, fer chrissakes, suck it up and enjoy the show...although maybe not with the kid in tow. It kinda makes you wonder if the "hockey mom" schtick isn't just about as hollow as the rest of the McCain/Palin schtick: one more attempt to connect with the down-home, real folks of America by pretending toward something that your actions prove you know surprisingly little about. P.S. Another fun part of this story: watching the McCain-ite blogosphere trip all over themselves arguing simultaneous that a) she wasn't booed that loud - it's just the biased liberal media over-reporting a couple of jeers; and b) that hockey-going liberals are a bunch of boorish thugs for booing a woman and child so vilely. It's amusing, really. |
Autumn
Profound Intrinsic Ability (by Phila)
According to a groundbreaking new study, cultures that value mathematical ability in women produce women who are good at math:Do females intrinsically have less ability than males to excel in mathematics at the very highest level? Conventional wisdom seems to say yes. Harvard University president Lawrence Summers also seemed to give credence to this notion in 2005 when he suggested that it might account in part for the very small number of women professors in elite university math departments.So as anyone who has thought honestly about the situation for ten seconds already knows, America's basic contempt for education hobbles males and females, but only females are accounted to have some inborn flaw that prevents them from excelling. I suspect that the conservative ideologues who find evidence of divine handiwork in mitochondria would have a great deal of trouble detecting a guiding inteligence behind this outcome, even as they work indefatigably to maintain and justify it. Here's what these great patriots have accomplished for their country: American children of immigrants from countries where math talent is highly valued — notably Eastern Europeans and Asians — are much more likely to be identified as possessing extraordinary mathematical ability.Meanwhile, over at Phi Beta Cons, which is National Review's blog on higher education, George Leef responds to the news that "the latest generation of adults in the United States may be the first since World War II, and possibly before that, not to attain higher levels of education than the previous generations." Chill out, say I. Like most higher-ed cheerleaders, Broad attaches far too much importance to years of formal education...People who spend four or more years and lots of money, often borrowing heavily, may wind up doing mundane work that calls for no academic preparation.Some might say the solution is to make education more affordable, if not free, while increasing our investment in job-creating fields like -- oh, I don't know -- environmental science and engineering. But that would require renewing a social contract that Leef and his ilk have rejected, and it could also lead to a national realization that certain American social inequalities are "due, at least in part, to a variety of socio-cultural, educational or other environmental factors that differ significantly among countries and ethnic groups and can change over time." Which would be inconvenient, to say the least. In other news, it seems that pregnancy doesn't actually make women stupid, after all. But it can cause them to miss out on educational opportunities. Pregnancy and motherhood may make us all go a little gooey [???], but it's not turning mums' brains into mush, according to mental health researchers at The Australian National University.Then again, they're probably going to "wind up doing mundane work that calls for no academic preparation" anyway, so they might as well save the money they would've spent on higher education and invest it in something worthwhile, like the stock market. Yet another reason to choose life! |
III. Democracy Is Hard Work, It Isn’t Diverting or Glamorous by Anthony McCarthy
| How serious are we about this democracy? Do we think that government of the People, by the People and for the People is important enough to save? George W. Bush says that he is sending Americans to die for democracy in Iraq. He says that's why he is sending them to die in Afghanistan. Apparently he likes sending them to die for democracy so much that he is looking for a third place to send even more. He says it so often that those words are some of the rare ones practiced enough to come out clear. To paraphrase one of our finest writers; he says and says and says those things, he says them but he lies them. We know he's lying because there is no prospect for democracy in Iraq and once he invaded there the possibility of setting up any real government in Afghanistan disappeared. Even if he hadn't invaded anywhere he had begun the dismantling of democracy in the United States before the ballots were counted in Florida. Republicans have proven over and again that they are determined to see democracy perish, if not from the face of the earth, certainly here. But that's them. How much do we value democracy? What do you think of these three ideas? - Anyone convicted of intimidating voters, vote tampering, vote rigging, voter fraud or any other crime against the right of the People to an honest election should receive a mandatory twenty-five year sentence with no possibility of parole. Considering the consequences we are witnessing, twenty-five seems like a light sentence for the crime. - It will be an impeachable offense for any judge or Supreme Court Justice to prevent the counting of a legitimate vote cast by an eligible voter in any election. The right of the People to cast a vote and to have it counted overrides any state or local regulations. Too many of those are clearly designed to lessen voter participation to begin with. A judge who hampers voting has violated the most basic right of a citizen and is unfit for the office in a democracy. The same holds for any other office in any part of the government. - No President or governor should have the power to pardon someone who has tampered with an election for them or their party. If someone was to be convicted in the thefts of Ohio, Florida or in the forgotten irregularities in New Hampshire, Bush will pardon them and a deal for their silence will be worked out as quickly as you can say Cap Weinberger. If you doubt this look at the millions of dollars the RNC gave the recently convicted James Tobin. And that was just for some petty phone jamming in a Senate race. I'm just about certain that the idea of a pardon after the fall elections will have been considered. As mentioned in part II, the scholars, such as are always called upon to lull us with the assurances that we are wrong about things going to hell, rhapsodize about the three branches. The three branches in balance that protect our liberties, each keeping the others in check. Here's something that always seems to be lost on those brilliant thinkers, branches die without roots. The voters keep the whole thing alive. A tree that gets cut down might send up new growth, if the roots are destroyed the whole tree rots in place. Our roots are shriveled. They require attention and I mean now. The branches are loaded down with leaves. You want to keep that tree, it's time for emergency pruning. June 2006 Update 2008 Being a life long resident of a small town in New England, I’ve gone to dozens of real town meetings. Both regular and special. Our town has had more than three thousand residents my entire life, it has about eight thousand today. Seeing how that fabled and mythic form of “self-government” actually works, I don’t hold any illusions about it. First, you will not get more than a tiny fraction of the voting population to come, it is inconvenient to the point of being a hindrance to participation. Second, the primarily budgetary issues will not be familiar to all but a hand full of those who show up. The arguments at town meetings are typically conducted out of ignorance and without most understanding the figures posted in the town report which everyone has in front of them. In the end, most town meetings typically pass the proposed budget with small, symbolic, changes, if for nothing else, to get it done. The big cuts are often made out of whipped up anger and often, though not always, are ill-advised, often costing the town many times more in following years when the problems created can’t be ignored. Third, most town meetings are gamed by interest groups and small, interested cliques, many on the town payroll, some at the behest of corporations and developers. Typically the police and fire departments and their families attend, vote in their budgets and leave. Other interest groups do the same. I’ve seen town meetings which were clearly being controlled by the moderator (often the town’s real estate lawyer) and two members of the meeting. The rules don’t prevent that. Many of the towns around mine are de-emphasizing town meeting because they have grown too big and the interest groups too effective for the results to be tolerable. I’ve had arguments about town meeting government with the romantics on the blogs, it turned out that many of them hadn't actually attended even one. One particularly strong adherent of town meeting government, when I revealed the size of my town, memorably dismissed me as being “from Podunk”. Having dissed irony in another post this morning, I’m not at liberty to invoke it now. The romantic view of “self government” is a fairy tale, the reality of what is required for real direct democracy is, frankly, a lot more hard work and understanding than all but a few people are willing to put into it*. Those few are mostly someone who wants something, funding or to be allowed to develop property against the common good and the sustainability of the environment. Governmental structures and practices have to be changed to what will attract the efforts of an effective majority who will put the common good first. What we’ve done, what we’ve allowed out of romantic fantasy and abstract, Jeffersonian, federalist, principle hasn’t worked. It accounts for the failure of our schools and our local government, it accounts for the corruption of our elections and of all levels of government. Having competent, honest representative government is the only solution to the problem of conducting The Peoples’ business. That is true on every level. The solutions to these real problems of democracy are not promoted by abstract theory or romantic myth. They aren’t diverting, they are only of the utmost importance. It is hard, difficult, often boring work. It isn’t glamorous in the way royalty and other despotic governments can seem. It’s only our lives and freedom in the balance. * This is one of the reasons that I have the deepest respect for good politicians, those who dedicate themselves to doing The People’s business on behalf of the common good. It is also why I disdain those who make cheap attacks on them when they can’t do it all. Having worked as a campaign volunteer for Democratic candidates, just running is more hard work than the causal carpers would ever expend on the common good. |
Two Problems We Have Right Now by Anthony McCarthy
| Every Day Should Be Don’t Talk Like A Sexist Prat Day Yes, the misogynist boys of the blogs are still there, bonding over their hatred of Hillary Clinton and other women. Yes, they are a blight on the leftist blogosphere, they ARE the exact equivalent of the racists in putrid bloom on Republican blogs. The big difference is that they are damaging OUR effort to push the agenda of progressives, liberals and leftists. By attaching themselves like toxic limpets to Barack Obama, they are creating a problem for his campaign. Clearly their boy bonding is more important to them than his winning the election. They need to be told to shut up and, since they don’t have very long attention spans, don’t care about the damage they do to the left and can’t be reasoned with, they need to be told to shut up repeatedly. They don’t hear women’s voices, they need to be made to hear them. They divide us, weaken us and give our enemies ammunition to use against us, and most topically, they damage our candidates. They must be made to feel uncomfortable, they need to be inhibited, they need to be given cooties. Sexism has to be made an unacceptable form of expression just as racism and homophobia does and that depends on us calling them on it constantly. You can depend on them using the “I was being ironic” dodge when you do, don’t fall for that one. Since the word has been stretched out of any coherence, irony is now the lowest form of humor, it is the last refuge of bigots. I propose that the randomly chosen day, October 18, 2008, should be “Tell Sexists Blog Boys To Shut Up Day”. Having no organizational talent, spreading the word will depend on others. I hope the habit takes and they are made to feel our anger with them. Hillary Clinton’s Future Is Too Important To Us, We Can’t Allow Her So Called Supporters To Damage Her. I've been around politics long enough to know a rump of obsessed monomaniacs often follows in the wake of a strong charismatic candidate but, really, I've never known of such a rump effort to persist in nursing its grudges when that fine candidate has moved on to try to make better use of their time and efforts. I don’t believe most of the so-called PUMAs are really interested in Hillary Clinton’s success. On the blogs, I am just about certain that many of them are actually Republican agent provocateurs. Hillary Clinton's real supporters are taking her at her word and are now supporting candidates who will further the agenda she set out, and that means electing Democrats next month. The few who are bent on tearing down her party for revenge, and in response to the likes of those addressed above. I’m afraid they are trying to draft her into what's turning into a Nader-style cult, only without a leader. They do that against Hillary Clinton’s own request, against her will. They are using her just as surely as the blog boys use her, for their own ends. They feed on each other and waste our time and effort, that is the reason I am addressing both here. I respect Hillary Clinton and believe she means what she says. Something that these other most curious “supporters” don’t believe. More important than what we think, she deserves better than that. She has devoted her life and her enormous abilities to Democratic politics, she's too important to allow her to be damaged by those stealing her identity. If it persists, especially if it succeeds, Hillary Clinton will be the ultimate victim of their efforts. |
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Valid Security Concerns (by Phila)
Apparently, US export regulations forbid the shipment of vaccines to countries that are designated as "state sponsors of terrorism."Under this little-known policy, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Sudan may not get the vaccines unless they apply for special export licenses, which would be given or refused according to the discretion and timing of the U.S. Three of those nations — Iran, Cuba and Sudan — also are subject to a ban on all human pandemic influenza vaccines as part of a general U.S. embargo....Christopher Wall of the US Commerce Department explains that "valid security concerns" necessitate keeping avian flu vaccines out of the wrong hands. The fear seems to be that state-sponsored evildoers will reverse-engineer a bioweapon from the vaccine. Pretending for a moment that this is within their power, it sounds like an awful lot of work for a weapon that might well cause higher mortality in the originating nation than in the United States or Europe. In any case, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan already have access to naturally occurring H5N1; their highly trained teams of evil geniuses would presumably find it easier to make a bioweapon from the live virus than from a vaccine. You'd also think that vaccinating people in other countries would be in our best interests. But perhaps the oceans started protecting us again, at some point after the 2001 anthrax attack. |
Part II. What If We Dodge The Bullet?
| Part I. What if they lose? What if the crimes of the Bush regime are stopped? What if things go back to normal? After what we've seen the past forty years, if things can go back to normal it won't be a blessed relief, it will be a disaster. Our recent history proves that we have fatal problems in the foundation of the American government. Our elections have to be fixed, not just returned to c. 1964. We have to secure the vote, from before it is cast to counting to reporting the results to their fulfillment. No elections official, secretary of state, or judge can ever be allowed to prevent another legal ballot being cast or counted or made to count. The sleazy behavior we've seen from every level from elections clerk to Supreme Court and the Executive wouldn't be tolerated in a real democracy. A democracy needs it to be an impeachable crime for a Supreme Court Justice to say that a Citizen of the United States does not have a right to vote. That is a fundamental contradiction of the role of the court in a democracy. Anyone who believes that has no place on our court or in our government. The media, and today that means the electronic media, have to have their self-interested biases exposed and its pollution scrubbed out of our politics. They have to be forced to perform the public service they promised, including meeting standards of fairness. Broadcast stations must provide real news, including local news, which has to be unbiased and fair as a condition for holding a license. And as a comment here yesterday said, without diverse ownership of the media, they won't serve the entire public. The cable "news" channels have betrayed the public trust even more flagrantly than broadcast, spreading lies effective enough to start the most idiotic and dangerous war of our history. We will pay the cost of their lies for decades, in blood as well as money. They also aided the Bush putsch of 2000 and the earlier scheme to remove a genuinely elected President on trumped up charges and lies. Pretending that a rogue cable industry isn't a danger to freedom has to stop. Anyone who defends them on their crimes against democracy is a dupe or a profiteer. Put them under the same public service requirements as broadcast media. Media passes itself off as the voice of the people, then let them show it by putting the public before their investors and owners. Recent history proves that self-government can't depend on leaving it to chance. Laissez faire democracy dies and the death is never a natural one. It lets the powerful and wealthy swamp the Peoples's voice almost all of the time. In the same comments mentioned above, it was pointed out that the Supreme Court rulings making corporations artificial people made that all the more true. Our government is always presented as having three branches, those are where almost all of the pitiful efforts at reform are concentrated. And that hasn't worked. We have the most dishonest government of our lifetimes. Putting patches on the process to make it a level field is unrealistic to the level of willful blindness. Powerful interests have power. They will always win when they have equal access to the process and own the media. The handful of examples where individuals or small groups win over the big guy make for sentimental TV movies, using them as proof that the system works is calculated dishonesty. If the People are neglected then it all goes wrong. They won't even show up to vote. That step isn't a naive social studies lesson that you stop thinking about after the test in fourth grade. You don't go on to the higher study of civics and leave it behind. There is nothing higher in a democracy than the People, there is no act of government more important than their Vote. Abraham Lincoln, one of the real founders of the country we live in today, gave the formula for it. You know it by heart. He didn't mention the congress, the executive or the high church of the judiciary. He said that the enormous sacrifice of the American People in the Civil War was so that government of the People, by the People, and for the People shall not perish from the earth. Any aftermath of the Bush II disaster that doesn't include changes to these laws will be just the beginning of the next time. Not securing the Vote, the will of the People; and forcing their own chosen responsibilities on the media, the only guarantee of an informed and realistic Vote, is a welcome mat for the next would-be dictator. Any liberal, leftist, Democrat, independent, even "moderate" Republican who lets two years go by without enacting real electoral and media reform had better beware. It's just a matter of waiting before the same coalition of corporate interests, bigots, oligarches and haters tries again. They might be as slow and stealthy as they were this time, buying up media, using it to spread lies that "more speech" can't drown out, but they'll make a come back. June 2006 Update 2008: None of this depends on theory, it depends on what actually happens in real, flesh and blood life. An uninformed vote cannot ensure that the will of The People is enacted in government, a fact that accounts for such things as the lack of universal health care and sound, reliable infrastructure in the United States. The right to full and accurate information is as much a part of securing the vote as letting someone mark a paper and accurately reporting the results. That depends on fixing the mass media. As that is an absolute requirement of the right of The People to self government, it isn’t an optional step. And those who inform themselves can’t just content themselves with the idea that the information is there for those who want it, Good government depends on an effective majority of the voters knowing the truth and that truth determining their vote. The right of self-government, without which a legitimate government can’t exist, is superior to the right of the press to their profit and to promote their owner’s profits. The free press ultimately depends on the choice The People make. It can’t retain its freedom for long unless it informs them to the extent necessary to produce a good, democratic government. Like it or not, today, that means that the electronic media has to be required to accurately inform those it corrupts for profit now. It can not be allowed to continue to be a lie machine which it has freely chosen to be since the fairness doctrine and other requirements of public service were removed from it. The ability for those willing to mouth the lies to make enormous salaries has, I absolutely believe, corrupted almost the entire media, including print. Even some of our non-commercial media sounds and reads like an audition to work at FOX. |
A Winning Mentality (by Phila)
| A marriage counselor named M. Gary Neuman suggests that men are complicated, and may have multiple reasons for doing -- or not doing -- a given thing. Take cheating on their partners, for instance. You might think that they do it simply because they want sex. In fact, they often do it because they're underappreciated. (We know this is true, because a number of them said so after getting caught.) "The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling underappreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures," Gary says. "Men are very emotional beings. They just don't look like that. Or they don't seem like that. Or they don't tell you that."Why don't they tell you? And why don't they seem like "very emotional beings"? Beats me. Maybe they get something out of it...some sort of authority or power, perhaps. Or maybe they got the idea, somehow, that men are supposed to be emotionally opaque, hyperaggressive lunkheads who'd rather watch sports than talk about their "feelings." Men have a winning mentality, Gary says. Just think about how the men in your life act while watching their favorite sports teams.Got that, ladies? We love to win! So if you can make us feel like we're winning, everything should be fine. And if not...well, any port in a storm, as the saying is. [I]f you want to secure your relationship and understand and have the knowledge of men, make them feel like they're winning with the things that they do for you."[I]f you want to secure your relationship and understand and have the knowledge of men, make them feel like they're winning with the things that they do for you.Here's an example. Normally, you make the breakfast, because you're the woman and that's what women do. But once in a while, your husband may decide to give it a whirl...perhaps because he feels guilty about fucking the babysitter. [I]f a man tries to make breakfast and burns the toast, Gary suggests staying positive.And as we all know, men love to win. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, Neuman explains his motives: "My book is about one thing. It's really about empowering women." |
What If We Dodge The Bullet? by Anthony McCarthy
| Three pieces. I. How Close We Are To It Happening Here This Time, October 2008 The news that is coming in shows that Republicans are again attempting to suppress the vote in minority communities and among others they believe will favor Democrats. This is in addition to and perhaps along with, the Supreme Court’s ruling last term allowing states to place burdens on the abilities of citizens to vote in the complete absence of the proof of a problem needing to be remedied and in full recognition that it could keep some of the same groups from voting. The other day I saw that a “reporter” from CNN had been given a voter registration paper which had been submitted for confirmation, which he waved on TV as “evidence” of Democrats trying to rig the vote. I hadn’t been aware that the officials in custody of such documents could hand them out to the press, especially if they were potentially evidence of a crime. You would have thought that a state or federal prosecutor was the proper channel for possible evidence of crimes, not CNN. Have the cabloid flacks been deputized? If so, they are going about it the wrong way. I believe those poll workers in Indiana could well have a partisan motive and should be investigated for abuse of their position and fired and/or, prosecuted as warranted. It all has the smell of a Florida 2000, Ohio 2004 style Republican election stealing campaign. It smells like the activities flowing out of some of the branches of the Resolution Trust Corporation which became centers of Republican propaganda in the early stages of the White Water putsch attempt. Crime, including voter fraud, has to be punished but this doesn't look like an attempt at due process, not in the least. It looks more like the Jim Crow era propaganda from The Birth of a Nation with sound and modern dress. Anyone who pretends that this is not a continuation of the line of activities including the infamous Bush v. Gore ruling is lying willfully. It is exactly in line with Republicans’ activities before the last election, which, among other things, led to the firings of the U.S. Attorneys because they were unwilling to participate in a partisan Republican attempt to use the Justice Department as an arm of the Republican campaign. We know of at least one member of congress and a Senator who were involved with that. The late William Rehnquist, who got his start in politics by intimidating minority voters and who was placed on the court despite perjuring himself about it in sworn testimony, works on in the votes of that narrow court majority and Republican officials in may places. Reconsidering the role the judiciary has played during this decade, nothing short of making judicial election rigging a felony seems prudent to me. Justices and others who attempt to deprive citizens of their right to cast a legitimate vote must be removed from the bench and punished severely. All of this, all of the past several decades is conclusive proof that tinkering with the process in order to prevent disastrous government such as we experience here and now, hasn’t worked. It didn’t prevent the most corrupt administrations under Reagan and the Bush family, it didn’t prevent the Gingrich and Hastert congresses or the activities of Tom Delay and Karl Rove. It has not prevented the post-Warren court from progressively making those more possible. If we are not lucky, we might be in for much worse, despite the best efforts of Common Cause and other diligent process patchers. How long does the effort get to fail before we try to get at the reasons for that failure or try something else? Any process reform without a change in the basic constitutional structure will either be nullified by corrupt courts, such as we have now, or gamed by the massively funded anti-democratic hirelings of would be oligarches and plutocrats. The difficulty and length of time that the shoestring budget process reformers need to pass watered down reform makes it in impractical way of saving democracy from its subverters. And that isn’t considering the disparity of funding that the opposing efforts work within. Corruption pays off for those with money and the influence it buys, of course they aren’t going to lose to public interest groups with neither. And if there was any danger of that happening, they can always find an ally on the courts to stall it if not stop it. And that legal community suffers no professional or social cost for their anti-democratic efforts. Many of them are quite genteel and work quietly at some of our most respected universities. They are the placid, acceptable PR face of despotism. The assertion of the Unitary Executive, the denial of the right to vote by the Supreme Court, and a myriad of acts subverting democracy have not woken up enough of those who purport to believe in the superiority of democracy to the real and intentional danger it is in. It’s time to prod them awake now. The Unitary Executive, which John Yoo felt safe enough to state in its clearest and least dishonest form*, is a bald faced advocacy of real fascism here and now. This is clearly a partisan, Republican ideology. Yoo definitely doesn’t see a Democratic president as having that level of power, he argued that Clinton didn’t have the powers he claimed for Bush II. Samuel Alito was one of it’s theorists. Antonin Scalia’s stealth introduction of aspects of that abomination into actual Supreme Court argument is more than just a sign of what they intend. There is no indication that John Roberts intends to be anything but the golden boy of the Republican-far right who will deliver the monster full term. Clarence Thomas, is the reliable fourth vote, so long as it is a Republican who is to be handed the power. If we dodge the bullet this time, it will not be due to the process, the judiciary or the press working, it will be due to The People facing the military and financial disasters that the Republican oligarches have brought us and, at least this time, making the right decision. It all depends on The People voting for democracy instead of against it next month. Democracy cannot last that way. It cannot depend on disasters due to incompetence and corruption to come to its rescue. We’ve had close calls before, the Bush II regime is the closest one yet. It could easily happen here. Americans are not a different species which is immune to the allure of dictators, we are not insusceptible to being led into it unawares or being propagandized into accepting it. We have to change the flaws in our constitutional framework and present The People with the truth. You cannot have competent, free government without The People, who - not the Constitution - are the REAL foundation of our government, taking their responsibilities as informed adults to do what’s right and necessary, not what’s transiently felt to be agreeable on the basis of false, brainless, anti-democratic, TV and video propaganda. * "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?" "No treaty," replied John Yoo, the former Justice Department official who wrote the crucial memos justifying President Bush's policies on torture, "war on terror" detainees and domestic surveillance without warrants. Yoo made these assertions at a public debate in December in Chicago, where he also espoused the radical notion of the "unitary executive" As the quoted article continues, Yoo asserts that a president is not bound even by laws made by Congress. Yoo's interlocutor, Douglass Cassel, professor at Notre Dame Law School, pointed out that the theory of the "unitary executive" posits the president above the other branches of government: "Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo" (one of Yoo's memos justifying torture). "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that," said Yoo. If anyone needs reminding, this wasn’t a frustrated, fringe nut case far from the hope of gaining power. John Yoo was working in The Bush Office of Legal Counsel, he is presently working at the Law School at a university as well respected as Berkeley. Perhaps he’s just biding his time before reentering the government. Perhaps he is on someone’s short list for a permanent position. The Unitary Executive, when coupled with the Bush era creation of permanent, undefined and undeclared wars, isn’t the equivalent of fascism, it is fascism by any definition. It is identical with the ways and means of fascism as defined by the founders of it. War is seen as a means of gaining, exercising and maintaining concentrated, unified power. War, at best a horrible and occasional necessity of last resort in a democracy, is a virtue for fascism. John Yoo, member of the Bush administration acceptable faculty member at a major university, is all the proof any honest person needs that American fascism is now in the Republican main stream. If Republicans were in a position to put him there, Yoo could be a Federal judge. Look at what is known about those they have placed on the Supreme Court. Alito and the rest of the ascendant wing of the Supreme Court are in place as you read this. Despite that cute rule about saying the word “fascist” losing you the argument, talking about fascism is essential to preventing it happening, no matter how uncomfortable that makes luke-warm liberals feel. The creation and promulgation of that stupidly cute bromide was a real service to actual fascists. If it turns out we are lucky, we are about one vote short of making the Unitary Executive Supreme Court enacted law. “If” because democracy might depend on what Anthony Kennedy has for breakfast any given day. These people are that close to doing it, but one suspects not during an Obama administration. If Republicans who don’t share the views of Yoo and Alito don’t like being associated with fascism, it’s their responsibility to actually purge them from their party and publicly denounce them. It is their responsibility to remove the Unitary Executive from being just an acceptable ideological position. They are the ones who have made it respectable enough to place one of its architects on the Supreme Court. It isn’t our responsibility to ignore this in order to spare the tender feelings of the most genteel of “moderate” Republicans’. Not only is that misguided kindness not an option, we don’t have the right to remain silent on this. |
Friday, October 10, 2008
Things Can Be Useful, People Can Be Helpful, Users Are Not by Anthony McCarthy
| The extraordinary financial crisis should be a time for sizing up ideas and getting rid of those that don’t work. Why that wasn’t done in previous crises is an important question. What’s the point of making mistakes if you don’t learn from them? If the S&L crisis had been taken as a learning opportunity, it’s possible the present disaster wouldn’t have happened. But the materialistic religion of the unfettered market, with enormous backing by those who could use it to steal everything in sight. had powerful and most interested parties to keep the swindle going. Instead of looking under the shells and getting rid of those with nothing but deceptive intents, successively larger shells were put over those in order to elicit higher bets from those foolish enough to place them. What else are the “new instruments” but just these kinds of empty shells covering up a lack of any real value? That a few were smart enough to pull out of the game and take their winnings before being subject to the big kill is only a confirmation of the nature of the thing. As many of those responsible for this mess work in the mass media, pulling the wool over the eyes of the marks was the full time job of the “free press” during the last forty years. They have been the croupiers and floor show of the great “free market” con job. The few who weren’t part of the theft, generally didn’t prosper in their profession during the past several decades. Maybe, eventually, those ubiquitous faces and voices who have been calling it wrong all along, will disappear into the ignominious obscurity they’ve earned by deceiving The People. Though that hasn’t happened yet. They’re still the guests that the talk shows have on speed dial, most of the cards in the Rolodex, the ones who the hosts allow to talk over other, more realistic voices. William Greider, please, don’t get discouraged. But it goes deeper than that. I really did mean it the other day, that there was a basic difference between the way liberals and conservatives think. It comes down to either seeing people as either possessing equal, inherent rights or seeing them as unequal. In some the majority of people are seen as either being of some utility, to be exploited, or entirely unimportant and to be disregarded or even disposed of. It is a narrowed class of people who are seen as having rights important to the conservative, they either don’t believe or don’t care about all people being created equal. There is a turn of phrase in the English language that has always bothered me but it wasn’t until this week that I understood why. The idea of someone being a “useful person”, people being “of use” of the duty of people to “make themselves useful”, never sat well with me. It is exactly the concept of a person having economic value, of having some utilitarian measure of worth based in their potential for being exploited. The extension, that there are people who are “useless”, and so, perhaps, their very existence is unimportant, is inescapable. The relationship of this to the idea of the “worthy” and the “unworthy” poor and destitute is very important too. I think a democratic way of looking at it would be to completely drop the idea of human utility, of having one person being to some extent at the disposal of another person. The idea and the language should concentrate on whether or not someone is helpful, whether someone lends aid to others, of people rendering help to other people on the basis of their own choice. There is a subtle but very real distinction to make between the two ways of seeing things. Being helpful is an act of volition on the part of a person who would be the one used by a superior in the analysis of usefulness. Just for a start, it overturns the dynamic of dominance by a “user”, to the free choice of the one lending their aid. It is a lot more in keeping with both seeing people as equals having rights and with a more friendly way of conducting human affairs. You choose to be helpful, you are compelled by circumstance or by the will of others to be useful. Help verses use. And I think there is a component of helpfulness that acknowledges that people are fully worthy of and entitled to help in obtaining what is necessary. It affirms the equal right to the necessities of life. I think that a person who is helped, without the nasty burdens placed on the need by our use-oriented thinking, would make the aid a lot more appreciated as well as those who freely give it as an act of friendship. There is almost certainly an aspect of gender role in this. I’ve got a really strong suspicion that it is generally seen as manly to use people, to compel them to do something for you and to find those of no use to you to be “useless”. Asking for help, relying on help freely given, is seen as unmanly if not “effeminate”. You have to be stronger than someone else to compel their being useful to you. Without inequality there is no ability to enforce use. Cooperation is certainly seen as unmanly as compared to setting up a competitive dominance structure. It could stem from the deep insecurity of self-centered people and their fearful, violent preemptive assertion of will over others. If that’s true, you would probably be able to elicit an overblown reaction from attempts to subvert this dynamic, along with the kind of coercive assertion of conformity, that is the hallmark of macho insecurity. I’d imagine you could run experiments on some of our more macho blogs to test that idea. There is also a class aspect to it too. Wealthier, more powerful, people use other people but they abhor the idea of needing help, those who need help are lesser human beings. That is what lies behind the repulsive, and, most tellingly and entirely “unChristian”, phrase “as cold as charity”*. It seems like a small point but it seems like a helpful way to understand the differences between two widely divergent views of live. * I once heard an Islamic woman say that in her branch of Islam that there was a duty to give charity but there was also an equal duty to accept charity. It seems like a really good idea to do that, in order to prevent the view of “charity” prevalent in conservative “christians”. How did people who claim to be followers of Jesus turn what he called the greatest virtue and most compelling human duty into a dirty word? Paul went farther than that, he said that without charity all the other virtues are nothing. The Jewish prophetic tradition, of which Jesus was a part, was largely concerned with the government, religious authorities and The People in general practicing charity. |
Pre-empting racism in the sub-prime debacle
Apparently, if you don't follow the Faux News genre of the media (as I don't), you might have missed this odious layer of blame that is rapidly arising in the mire of the subprime crash. I first got wind of this on MSNBC's first-person, main-street Gut Check, where Joe Sixpacks, Jane Hockey Moms, and real people too were sending in stories of life under the financial crisis; MSNBC was running the vignettes on the face page of their news site for several days a week or so ago. The original quotes are down now (sorry, no link), but a gentleman from a heartland city unequivocably stated that if we hadn't been pushed to lend to minorities and po' folks - what with the push for affordable housing for all and all that nonsense and whatnot - we would never be in this mess. Huh. Minorities at fault for the subprime crisis? Affordable housing on the hook for banking failures, in a market bubble? This was the first I had heard of it, but this sort of rhetoric never comes out of nowhere. Sure 'nuff, the theme of blaming the poor people and minorities is nothing new even in good times - but a frightening specter as the creep of bad times rises of over the horizon like the bad moon of a Creedence Clearwater Revival tune. If you google "community reinvestment act subprime," you'll get a gander at this burgeoning debate. The Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 to push banks and other lenders to be accountable for their historic discrimination against minorities and poorer demographics when deciding on who to loan out mortgages to; it's been amended a handful of times since then. The rightward-leaning elements of the media would have you believe that this Carter-era legislation was responsible for the 2008 crash - some thirty years after the fact - and that mortgage companies and lenders were simply forced, forced!, to hand over fistfuls of cash to the high risk pool that is poor minority families. Not so fast. There have been a number of very fine op-ed pieces debunking this racist, blame-the-victim rhetoric, and it behooves every progressive out there to keep one of these debunkings in their back pocket. As times get tough and the inevitable scrambling begins for the dregs of the recessionary economy, it is vital to remember - and be able to successfully argue - that racism has no place at this table. To wit, Newsweek (yeah, go figure, Newsweek) ran a thorough and well-sourced piece on how and why the subprime crash does not fall on the backs of poor and minority owners: "The Community Reinvestment Act applies to depository banks. But many of the institutions that spurred the massive growth of the subprime market weren't regulated banks. They were outfits such as Argent and American Home Mortgage, which were generally not regulated by the Federal Reserve or other entities that monitored compliance with CRA. These institutions worked hand in glove with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, entities to which the CRA likewise didn't apply. The CRA didn't force mortgage companies to offer loans for no-money down, or to throw underwriting standards out the window, or to encourage mortgage brokers to aggressively seek out new markets. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to slap high-grade ratings on subprime debt.Well said. There's an old adage liberally stolen from an old West bank robber, I believe it was Willie Sutton: when asked why he robbed banks, he simply looked sideways and said, "'Cause that's where the money is." How's about we employ a nineteenth-century tactic to sorting out the who and how of the fault for the subprime crash: we just look at who is holding fistfuls of cash at the end of the game, and there you might find your answer of who was rifling through the til while the regulators were asleep. |
Friday sunset blogging (by Suzie)
Phil Sheffield, a retired professional photographer, took this photo on Anna Maria Island in Florida last month. |
Things that shouldn't get thought out loud
Information and change (by Suzie)
One problem with this argument is that it assumes people are equally motivated in their desire to understand one another, and that they are equally motivated to change society. I believe in giving people information, in hopes they will see the light (i.e., think like me). But I have to remind myself that people need some impetus to listen, to think, to change. I bought Allan Johnson’s “The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy” because I wanted a Feminism-for-Dummies book that I could give male friends. I thought they would be more receptive to a male author, and Johnson writes so that anyone can understand. I have female friends who reject feminism or whose beliefs differ from mine. In general, however, they have a better grasp of the problems facing women, as you might expect. I gave Johnson’s book to a colleague who expressed interest in my beliefs. He read only a few pages before concluding Johnson was president of the men-haters club. My colleague is a liberal Democrat who believes in women’s rights. But words like “patriarchy” sound crazy to him, as they do to many of my liberal friends. He’s busy, and he has only a passing interest in feminism. Johnson says: I can't give up on the liberal project of providing information, even though I know that that alone is not sufficient. But sometimes I want to flag down Echidne's aliens and ask them to take me back to their world.Liberal feminism’s main assumption is that privilege and oppression result from ignorance whose removal through enlightened education will clear the road to equality and a better life for all. But it doesn’t see gendered behavior in a larger framework in which some people benefit by “ignorance and misunderstanding.” |
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Useful Reading On The Financial Markets
Yes, I know that nobody wants to read anything about those markets. They're like a nightmarish version of the free marketeers' dreams: A Market Run Amok. Besides, further panic is exactly the worst possible response to the recent events, and it's very hard to read about the recent events without feeling all panicky (though remembering that even during the Great Depression the majority of workers were not unemployed might help). In any case, there are steps that can be taken. For example, both Roubini and Krugman explain the severity of the crisis but they also explain what can be done especially this weekend when all the high-and-mighty are gathering together in Washington D.C.. Added later: Thanks to Nancy in the comments for drawing my attention to this NYT article about Greenspan's role in the development of the markets with the ability to go totally amok. You should read it, especially the third page which discusses the way the Big Guys shot down a regulatory attempt by Brooksley Born:
Wow. Just wow. |
This Worries Me
The unreasoning anger I see in this: So I look for the ones who should be adult and moderate this anger, such as people in the McCain campaign and McCain himself. Is he doing what he should be doing? |
Today's Silly Thought
You know the way Haloscan sometimes throws up the message: "An internal server error occurred. Please try again later."? Next time I get a migraine attack I'm gonna use that as the explanatory post. And no, this isn't very funny, after all. |
Lame Duckery
We shouldn't forget that the Bush administration is not yet in the past but busily fighting the hidden war against women of this world:
It's always fun to punish poor women in some far-distant country for some perceived political advantage in a totally different place, is it not? The poor are easy to punish, in general, because their voices will not be heard. But we should be aware of all the stuff that even a lame-duck president can manage. |
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Politics in Pictures. A Feminist Essay.
Prelude Several picture games are being played about the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The first picture I saw (thanks to Ali for finding it again) is this one: ![]() The second one (from Pharyngula) is this one: ![]() A Fark comments thread has many, many more. They mostly share the same joke: While Obama and Biden are up-to-date, functioning and technically complex McCain is old, out-of-date and falling apart while Palin is a toy (preferably something girlish) or a joke and very stupid. It's possible for me to see these images as a person who very much wants to see Obama/Biden win this race. That person finds many of the comparisons quite funny. But if I put my feminazi glasses on and use their wider lenses to look at these pictures I notice something different: All these pictures let us laugh at a picture of a woman because she's stupid, a sex kitten, not to be taken seriously. They let us put up the pictures of three men and one woman and to always rate two of the men as the best and in most cases the woman as the worst of them all. "Ah," you might be saying. "But Palin really is a disaster of disastrous proportions. That she just happens to be a woman is irrelevant." To which I answer: "So in your universe being a woman is irrelevant in politics? You must have lots of female politicians and very few misogynists." The Firsts As The Best We Have Well, in my universe female politicians are fairly rare. Indeed, Sarah Palin is the very first female Republican vice-presidential candidate ever! The very first! It's useful at this point for you, my erudite and keen reader, to lean back, close your eyes and imagine that you are back in the pre-Palin era, in those halcyon days when no woman had ever been the Republican vice-presidential candidate. Which names might have cropped into your mind as possible female running mates for John McCain? Which Republican women had shown themselves to be experienced and skilled politicians, well equipped for the job? I'm sure that you can jot down a few names on that mental list, a mental list of possible "Firsts." That's what I call the very first black or the very first woman or the very first Latino who enters some new field of endeavor. These Firsts are usually carefully picked. They are almost flawless individuals, because otherwise the prejudice people feel towards against anything new and untried, combined with racism and sexism and other such -isms many people also feel, otherwise those will tear the First into small shreds. The first black and/or female students at elite universities were superbly talented individuals, often most carefully groomed for the jobs of being Firsts. Jackie Robinson, the first black baseball player introduced into white professional baseball player was not just an excellent player; he had also attended UCLA and served as a second lieutenant in the army. His self-control was impeccable. That he was all this was not a random accident but a very careful choice by those who wanted to integrate professional baseball. This is how the Firsts are usually chosen. Usually, but not in the case of Sarah Palin. Yet she IS the first Republican female vice-presidential candidate and this allows her to be viewed by the sexists among us as the best women can offer (or at least the best Republican women can offer). It allows the sexists among us to make fun of all women in the disguise of making fun of only Sarah Palin. And trying to differentiate between these two intentions is almost impossible. Note that my post is not intended to denigrate Sarah Palin's qualifications. A country which has had eight years of George Bush and his qualifications and found them just fine shouldn't suddenly get all red-faced and furious about her qualifications or the lack of them. But Palin is not the kind of an individual who is picked to be the First in a new and important arena, certainly not if the intention is to have her break the path for other women to follow (always assuming that she'd let them). Yet there she is. Back to the Pictures Let's look at those pictures again, from that feminazi angle. Note how in the first one all the three men wear somber business suits and white shirts. They are all portrayed indoors, apparently giving speeches. Note how the one woman in the pictures is dressed very informally, even messily and portrayed in a non-professional outdoors setting. All this makes the point about Palin's lack of judgement and experience --- how? I believe that it's done by linking her to the archetypal images of women as belonging to the home, not the office. The second picture compares each candidate to a different type of train engine. McCain's engine is an ancient one but Palin's isn't even a real engine. It's a toy. Her engine would never have actually moved by itself. It's not a train. It pretends to be a train. Just imagine how much fun those who look down on women in general have with that picture! And what freedom all this allows for the misogynists among us who also happen to be Democrats! On the other hand, some conservative misogynists must feel almost as unhappy with this setup as I do... There you are. It's a mess, this situation, because however hard I wish it not to be the case Sarah Palin is seen both as a First Woman and also as an individual and it's not truly possible to criticize just the latter if the criticism is based on general sexism. The Firsts As Invisible The most common trick to get around this problem is to ignore the essential nature of some types of Firsts, to pretend that they are not happening at all. That way focusing on the individual seems valid and the criticism can be as nasty as you can make it be. Hillary Clinton was treated in this manner by many among the liberals and progressives. She was interpreted within the framework of Bill Clinton's reign, as a sneaky way of getting Bill back into the White House, as a representative of the old and stale in Washington, D.C., as hopelessly tainted by the hatred she elicits among the conservatives. That she may or may not have been all this AND also the first woman ever to have a real chance at the U.S presidency somehow disappeared from sight. Indeed, the whole idea of a First Woman in any new arena was itself deemed as old hat, as something silly, given the existence of Nancy Pelosi (she should be enough for you wimmenfolk) or the success of girls at school or the yuckiness of tokenism in general. That children learning about the presidents or vice-presidents of the United States will not learn a single female name was unimportant, given the urgency of the problems of our time and the need to pick the best possible candidate. Besides, one day a woman will turn up, good enough and pure enough to qualify whatever the urgent problems of that time might be. In the meantime, the majority of Americans are still female. Now, it could well be that Hillary Clinton wasn't the best possible candidate and that other matters than feminist concerns took precedence in the minds of the voters, especially given the First nature of Barack Obama, too. But still, Clinton was a First and her Firstness has not been celebrated the way it should have been. It has not been acknowledged the way it should have been: As path-breaking. And sadly, those who grieve for the respect that was never paid to a fallen First will not find support and understanding on the largest and most influential liberal and progressive blogs. Rather the opposite, and I believe the reason for that is the way we have made the Firstness of these women invisible, just as women and their concerns often turn invisible in various political discourses. Conclusions Not being "the other" has some great advantages. For instance, when John McCain or Joe Biden do something stupid they only affect their own reputations, because white men are not "the other". They are individuals. When Barack Obama or Sarah Palin do something stupid they affect the reputations of African-Americans or women respectively (at least among all racists and sexists). They serve as embodiments of the groups they represent. This is the case as long as Firsts are necessary, as long as we only have a handful of individuals on which to base our group assessments. On some level most women, for example, know this. Thus, when I look at the pictures in this post I can see them as making fun of Sarah Palin but my stomach thinks differently. It suspects that the pictures also make fun of me. Note that the dilemma this puts us in is not one with an easy or rapid solution. The obvious solution is to have enough politicians from all gender and race groups so that they all come across as just individuals. Then we can criticize them to our hearts' content without saying anything about the group they happen to come from. But that must await some future century. |
Let's Pretend
That we have been chosen as the guides and hosts of very intelligent humanoid-type alien tourists from outer space and that it's our duty to explain to them how this planet functions. So we show these guests pictures of the earth, pointing out China as "the place where we make everything but weapons" and then we point out the U.S. as "the place where most of the weapons are created" and then we point out places in the Middle East and in Africa as "the places where we kill people more efficiently than in other places." When they ask about the mines and the smog and so on (they ask these questions because they are MY aliens and if you don't like the questions manufacture your own aliens) and why we cut off the tops of the mountains and wallow deep inside the earth to make long tunnels we, the guides, must clarify that "no, we are not a worm-type species which needs to digest the earth and then fart it out in big dark clouds." We are simply eating up our home planet. At which point the aliens will tsk tsk in their own weird language while shaking their antennae. We then try to explain to them why the outer shell color of people matters so much on this planet and why those individuals who can lay eggs (sorta) are regarded as second-class quality essentially everywhere while the egg-laying ability itself is lauded to high heavens. The aliens then roll all their eight eyeballs and decide to vacation on Alpha Centaur next time. And so on. I'm sure you can add to these thoughts. The point is to step outside the little petri dishes in which we have grown up and to try to see the system from a distance. It's a fascinating way to spend time while getting your teeth cleaned, for example. |
The Second Debate
The transcript is here. I listened to the debate on the radio which means that I have nothing to say about body language and such. But mostly it sounded a lot like a re-run of the first debate about economics and foreign policy, even in the questions that were asked. I don't see how the reactions to the debate would help McCain. I assume the third debate will be about stuff like women's rights? Hmm. |
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Restoring Confidence in the Markets
George Bush spoke about that the other day and Dan Froomkin pointed out that as people don't have confidence in Bush as a president they are unlikely to have confidence in what he says about restoring confidence. Bush is not the only voice which has asked for confidence to be returned. Confidence is that magical thing which would stop people from taking their savings out of the banks or moving all their investments into gold and under-the-mattress funds. I doubt that confidence is easily returned, however. My old parable about the financial markets as a person turning up at the ER of a hospital with severe and inexplicable bleeding still applies. Of course the bleeding must be stopped and the patient's condition stabilized. Of course. But the next stage is not just releasing the patient back on the streets with no actual diagnosis or long-terms treatment plans, and that's how I view the current rescue packets. They are like the first-aid at an ER. Yet we are asked to view the treatment as sufficient to give us "confidence" in the patient's future health, even though we don't have a real diagnosis or a real prognosis or any long-term treatment information. Once again, I'm returning to my frequent pleas to make sure that the markets have proper rules and proper oversight. Installing those now will not cancel the crisis we are in but it's imperative for the avoidance of worse things in the future. It's like long-term medical supervision and care for a patient who was ill enough to turn up at the emergency room. I also think that it's useful to distinguish between "confidence" and "trust" in the markets. It's trust that we really need, trust that the markets won't suddenly implode and destroy our retirement savings or the value of the most important capital asset most people own: the value of their homes. And for that trust to return we need to understand and treat the ultimate reasons for what ails the markets. |
I'm Tickling the Back of Yer Knee!
Did you ever see this picture of the blogosphere? This blog is there, right at the knee of that weird boot with the sharp heel (called Artemis' boot though everyone knows that Artemis wears steel-toed loggers' boots). Right below Chomsky! How odd is that? I'm not sure what I should feel or think about this. |
Money Makes The World Go Round
Do you get the image of Liza Minelli in a top hat when you read that title for this post? The point of the song wasn't quite to tell us that firms and consumers need liquid assets, something that can be used to ease transactions in general and to make barter unnecessary, something that allows a firm to pay its employees this month while waiting for its customers to pay it next month. Money or short-term credit. It is short-term credit which appears to have almost dried up in the financial markets of many countries and the injections of money into the system are an attempt to oil the gears sufficiently so that somehow the markets for short-term credit get going again. Whether it works is a big question mark. Paul Krugman, among others, has argued for a while that the crisis we are living is not a liquidity crisis but one about lack of capital, and if that is right the liquidity injections will not work. Now he has written a short paper (pdf) about the reasons the crisis globalized so very rapidly. (You can skip the squiggles and just read the bits in English if you don't like squiggles.) He concludes that the financial markets are a whole lot more global than we have thought, or at least more global in ways we did not prepare for. They allowed the exporting of the American crisis more rapidly and efficiently (sarcasm) than many economists expected. Then to the House Oversight Committee which has discussed the sad story of the Lehman Brothers' demise:
It's always interesting that the "law-and-order" Republicans are so very unwilling to have any laws apply to the marketplace and that they justify this by saying that the clever buggers would just get around them. This reminds me of George Bush telling us how there's no point in trying to really tax the rich as they'll run rings around the government and take their money abroad. I still think that the whole financial markets fiasco is because of lack of proper oversight and proper regulatory rules. For instance the credit default swaps were insurance, but they were not subjected to the rules insurance companies had to follow. |
Monday, October 06, 2008
Killing Me Gently
I just read the horrible story about a man who killed his wife, his mother-in-law and his three sons before killing himself. The story gets so much publicity, because of its fit with the current financial markets mess. The murderer was someone who had been employed in the financial industry, who couldn't find another job and who was in deep financial trouble despite having a house in a gated community and so on. It's a dreadful story about multiple murders. Or about multiple murders and a suicide. But the manner in which it is reported is extremely odd:
There ya go. A multiple-murder story which begins with explaining why the murderer committed the murders and how he "takes responsibility" for the crimes. Except that he didn't take responsibility, because he offed himself. Here's more about his motives and responsibility:
There's lots of empathy in that quote, empathy towards the man who was so tormented that he killed five people, but zero empathy towards those five people. Did he ask them if they wanted to die with him? Did he think of them as separate individuals, entitled to make those choices themselves? Perhaps he did, but the story as told here doesn't convince me of some kind of a shared suicide pact. It looks a lot like a murder of five people who didn't want to get killed. That should not be forgotten just because the story fits in with the financial market turmoil. |
The Power Of Porn
How interesting and unexpected:
And Flynt isn't alone in his desire to turn a female politician into a porn star, whether she has agreed to it or not. I'm sure that this is the usual way porn producers express their political views: By making porn about politicians. So let me know the names of the porn movies that have been made about George Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. I really, really want to watch those. Should you happen to be one of those who think that Sarah Palin is exploiting her own sexuality in the campaign and might not mind if others join in, think about the Hillary Clinton nutcrackers or the way her cleavage was discussed all over the political media. |
The Second Deep Thought for a Monday
Migraine is more controllable than the financial situation right now:
I recommend J.K. Galbraith's little book The Great Crash 1929, because it gives a very good idea about the steps which were taken (and not taken) at that time and which of those steps made things much, much worse. We can learn from that, even though the economies then and now are quite different. |
Deep Thought for a Monday
Having a bad migraine attack is more enjoyable than writing about what Sarah Palin means for feminism. |
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Tim Wise: Might wanna adjust your hairshirt, your sexism is showing (by Skylanda)
Apparently I'm the last liberal on the block to get forwarded a copy of Tim Wise's latest missive on racism in America. I hadn't heard of Tim Wise before, but maybe you have. He is, self-proclaimedly, "among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the US." Judging by a strangely come-hither picture attached to the bio on his site (as well as a lot of titles that indicate that his racial background up front), he is a white dude. Aside from the usual questions that brings up (like, say, why is a white dude sucking down so much media time - what with his bragging bio noting that he's been "a featured guest on hundreds of radio and television programs worldwide" - when an actual person of color could be getting some air time), there is some credit to be given where credit is due: he makes a lot of good points. Chief among those good points are things like the comparison of what reaction you typically get when a young white man (versus a young Hispanic man or young black man) pontificates publicly on their enthusiasm for guns, gun ownership, and gun rights. Racism: hard to argue there. So might might not seem necessary, even though he seems to think it is, to spend more than half the essay bagging on Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin's daughter. Sarah Palin's extended family. And, oh yes, Sarah Palin's vagina. Uh huh, you didn't read that wrong: "White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose 'next door neighbor' qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them."I'm sorry, but who the hell is this guy and what the hell is his business judging the personal obstetrical practices of a woman he's never met? And fer chrissakes, but where did this tidbit about Sarah Palin's amniotic fluid come from, how was it confirmed, and why on god's green earth was this made fodder for any kind of public debate? Unlike some of his finer points, this one does not even provide a one-to-one match between the white privilege he is criticizing and the moments of oppression of people of color he is highlighting (come again, what does amniotic fluid leaks have anything at all to do with children on television?). In fact, these have nothing to do with each other. And in fact, I've never heard of a woman of color being criticized for taking too long to get to the hospital while leaking amniotic fluid - and I've worked labor & delivery in two major metropolitan areas and a handful of small rural towns to boot; women of color certainly get criticized for all kinds random criteria that wealthy white women get a free pass on (don't for a second believe that poor white women don't face down similar drive-by critiques of their mommying skills), but to make up extra points of contention just so you can get a few extra digs in at Sarah Palin? There was no anti-racism content in this paragraph at all; this was pure put-her-in-the-stocks-and-throw-tomatoes-at-her crap from a white dude toward a white woman. And so once again, the take-down of racism against men of color (as Obama is the main target of his defense, just as Palin is the main target of his attack) will be performed on the backs of the nearest woman. The entire column consists of roughly 22 paragraphs of similarly pithy comparisons, of which no less than thirteen are dedicated to bagging on Palin, her educational record, her family, what have you. Number of paragraphs dedicated to George Bush? One and a half. Number of paragraphs dedicated to McCain - ya know, the guy that's running this campaign? Six, sorta maybe seven. In case you thought he would generously spare McCain's family, nah - Cindy McCain even gets a nod for her prescription drug addiction...again, terribly lovely fodder for debate. This kind of rhetoric, it doesn't sit well for so many reasons. It forces me into the untenable position of feeling obligated to defend the likes of Sarah Palin, which is something I am loathe to do. It forces women of color to engage once again in that counter-productive, ridiculous, second wave-crushing question of whether race or gender is their primary source of oppression, and conversely, whether race or gender is their primary loyalty. This only has to be an either-or question when someone who pretends to be on the side of either women or people of color drives a wedge this deep and forces loyalties to split - otherwise, it's a question that does not ever need to be asked or addressed. You can be faced with multiple sources of strife; you can have split loyalties; reasonable people can maintain all this in the same brain and not implode. It does no one any good to pit race against gender; this is a loser situation all around. It forces the undermining of his very real and important points - which should be able to stand on their own without the blunt force repetition of just how much we should hate Sarah Palin and what goes on her family and her vagina. But most of all, it forces me to realize - once again - that whatever the perspective (pro-racism, anti-racism, whatever, you name it), women will always be little more than grist for the mill when a white dude wants to make a point. A good point, a bad point, a self-righteous point, an important point, an inane point, whatever kind of point he wants to make: a stranger's vagina is his bizness to make it with. P.S. In case you don't believe me, here's another paragraph: "White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a 'second look'."Good going, Tim. Way to believe that liberal white women actually flocked to Sarah Palin - thanks for the confidence in our ability to think for ourselves and withstand the undeniable temptation of voting for a pro-life, anti-environment conservative just 'cause she's got a vajayjay just like us (would it be too hard to convince him that hey, most of the women who flocked to Sarah Palin really have little to no substantative disagreement with her philosophy? nah, that would cause him to have to address real racism, instead of just bagging on women for the sake of bagging on women). And way to totally dismiss the desire that some of us women have to actually see a woman in the White House before the end of our lives; it is this kind of bull that made the clash between Clinton and Obama so profound - thanks for reminding us all over again that racism is justifiable if it's in offense against sexism, and sexism is justifiable if it's in the offense against racism. Really, we could have lived without banging our heads against that wall over and over again. |
Louder Oceans (by Phila)
New research suggests that ocean acidification reduces sound absorption, which means that underwater noise will travel for longer distances:Conservative projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the chemistry of seawater could change by 0.3 pH units by 2050 (see below for background information on pH and ocean acidification). In the October 1, 2008 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, Keith Hester and his coauthors calculate that this change in ocean acidity would allow sounds to travel up to 70 percent farther underwater. This will increase the amount of background noise in the oceans and could affect the behavior of marine mammals....Things affect other things. Go figure. Presumably, calculations of the allowable noise levels for wind-farm turbines, and undersea warfare training exercises, and acoustic deterrent devices will take ongoing acidification into account. What depresses me about all this -- aside from the obvious -- is that the more effects climate change has, the less seriously it seems to be taken among skeptics. Just as consensus is seen as collusion, each new concern is met with greater disbelief: "Now they're saying global warming will make fish go deaf! Bwa ha ha!" It's certainly not due to any lack of imagination. The same people usually have no problem teasing out the hidden connections between gays and subprime mortgages, or immigrants and Morgellons disease. And the analogical intricacies of liberal fascism are as child's play to them. But even among people who accept that warming is real but natural, the idea that it could have serious, wide-ranging, unexpected effects remains downright alien: perhaps the world's getting a tiny bit warmer, the argument goes, but how could that possibly affect disease transmission, or the incidence of wildfires? If anything, the inactivists seem to be even more complacent than the denialists, which is no mean feat. A recent article in Science discusses the tendency to find connections and patterns where they don't exist. I'm more impressed by the ability to ignore them where they do. |
Saturday, October 04, 2008
One for my side (by Suzie)
TAMPA - His pornographic persona, Max Hardcore, is all swagger and sadism - forcing women in his movies to do things that can't be described in a family newspaper.The woman in question is a federal judge. This article, and the new Chihuahua movie (see below), made my day. |
Hard-Wired (by Phila)
A new paper in the Journal of Health Organisation and Management allegedly explains "why your boss is white, middle-class and a show-off."Prehistoric behaviours, such as male domination, protecting what is perceived as their "turf" and ostracising those who do not agree with the group is more commonplace in everyday work situations than many of us want to accept, according to the research which was carried out in hospitals.And that, gentlemen, is why your boss is white, middle-class, and a show-off. Braithwaite goes on to explain the mechanisms at work: "Groups were territorial in the past because it helped them survive. If you weren't in a tight band, you didn't get to pass on your genes," he says. "Such tribalism is not necessary in the same way now, yet we still have those characteristics because they have evolved over two million years.I could make the usual objections to using a hypothesis about the past as evidence for a hypothesis about the present -- and vice versa -- but I'd rather focus on the title of this press release. By themselves, neither tribalism nor territoriality nor male dominance can explain why "your boss" is white or middle class; the process by which a specific group comes to dominate others is more complex than that, obviously. And in human societies, part of that process has to do with what can be presented as fact by means of scientific authority. With that in mind, note that the phrase "your boss is white" communicates a number of assumptions about this journal's readers as well as their bosses (while saying very little about the actual content of a paper whose author casually compares African tribal culture to modern, multiracial healthcare facilities). If you're going to boil our problems down to tribalism, you should probably acknowledge the role of tribalism in constructing the "objective" vantage point from which you seek to explain other people's actions. Which might mean looking a little more closely at how the racial and economic logic of domination can persist in something as simple as the title of an academic press release (to say nothing of the extent to which words like "hard-wired" and "necessary" work to perpetuate and disguise the domination you hoped to dissect). Braithwaite says that "we need to stop being simplistic and realise that changing behaviours and encouraging teamwork is much harder than we think." No doubt. But I'm not sure that comparing white social and economic dominance to African tribalism, and then explaining both in terms of reproductive fitness, is the way to go about it. Certain inequalities may have had their origin in prehistoric conditions, but centuries of religion and philosophy and art and science have aimed at justifying and eternalizing them. The failure to be conscious at all times of this tradition is anything but objective. |
Bailing Out (by Phila)
| It's amazing how swiftly we can act when important things are at stake. We were able to pass an $800 billion bailout bill without a multidecade debate on the precise nature and severity of the catastrophe we hoped to avoid, and whether or not the solution would work. We don't require unanimity from our economists, as we do from our climatologists; God knows His own. Meanwhile, "ten of the world's richest countries have pledged 6.1 billion dollars to help poor countries deal with the effects of global warming." Talk soberly about carbon isotopes, satellite data, and the volume of sea ice and you're a fuzzy-headed alarmist or a closet Marxist. Make the rounds of the cable news shows spouting words like "meltdown," "depression," and "investor optimism," and you're a gimlet-eyed positivist with an exquisite grasp of cause and effect. One of the things that fascinates me about all this is that it's apparently still good to be "decisive." Lest anyone think we've learned anything in the last eight years, taking swift and decisive action in a crisis of one's own making still trumps thinking ahead, or acknowledging facts you don't like hearing. If a flood of ungrateful climate refugees ever inconveniences us as they travel between "a past place of expulsion, and a future one of denial," I'm sure we'll very decisively throw money at that problem too, in the form of bigger and better border walls, killer drones, mass surveillance, and detention camps. The important thing is that the solution must always reaffirm the worldview that justified the behavior that caused the problem. All of which is a preamble to the fact that "the 2008 season strongly reinforces the thirty-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent": NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, “When you look at the sharp decline that we’ve seen over the past thirty years, a ‘recovery’ from lowest to second lowest is no recovery at all. Both within and beyond the Arctic, the implications of the decline are enormous.”Absolutely. And this calls for decisive action! In other news, Christof Rühl, chief economist at BP, explains oil markets in terms that anyone can understand: There will never be a moment when the world runs out of oil because there will always be a price at which the last drop of oil can clear the market. And you can turn anything into oil into if you are willing to pay the financial and environmental price. |
Leadership At Five Minutes To Midnight, Nancy Pelosi October 2008 by Anthony McCarthy
| Nancy Pelosi deserves a lot more respect than she’s given. People on leftist blogs, particularly the boys, constantly slam her for not delivering what we want, seeming to think, somehow, the Democratic Speaker of the House hasn’t delivered what a sizable portion of Democrats and others want because she doesn’t want to. Well, let’s again review her reality. She is the farthest left of anyone in the direct line of succession of the presidency in the history of the United States, a remarkable achievement for anyone in 2008. I’ve pointed that out here before. She gained that position at a time when ‘liberal’ is a dirty word in the wider culture. She gained it by dint of her own hard work and intelligence. No one handed it to her out of the clear blue. She holds that position by the fact that Democrats hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives, a majority won during her leadership. That is something her male predecessor couldn’t seem to achieve. Least anyone forget, Nancy Pelosi is also the only woman who has ever been in direct line of presidential succession, the only one to lead either of the two houses of the legislative branch. Her majority depends on a number of marginal seats held by conservative Democrats who could easily lose the next election and who are quite aware of that. The full array of Republicans, from the fiscal pirates to the religio-fascist wings of their party will be doing their best to unseat these understandably skittish Democrats. If anyone has forgotten, in the 2006 election the Republicans never lost a chance to remind everyone across the country that Pelosi is from San Francisco. That is Republican code for “fag lover”. Only, since everyone with a brain understands it, it’s not code. She is also in opposition to a Republican president, the most unscrupulous and dishonest president of our times, part of an administration which has shown it will do anything in order to grab power and use government to both exercise illegitimate power and to attack their opposition. After the past month of the McCain campaign, it’s plain that all Republicans are Rove Republicans now. There is no reason for any Democrat to rely on the present day Supreme Court to not act in a partisan way on behalf of Republicans, twisting the most basic legal fabric past raveling to do it. They have shown themselves quite willing to go so far as install a Republican as a result of a corrupted election in an entirely unprecedented action that in a real Republic would be grounds for their impeachment. And if that isn’t enough, she knows that the corporate media, essentially all of the American media, is in the pockets of the Republican one-corporate-party-state, Party. She’s got few who will even give an unbiased look at Democrats. Those few are mostly in print, which is of nearly nugatory political effect. If those weren’t the prevailing conditions, Nancy Pelosi would be able to deliver a lot more of our agenda than is possible today. I sincerely believe she would like to. Yet she is constantly attacked by the left as well as by the Republican right. Her gender is one of the features of those attacks, often just barely concealed, frequently not. With a greater record of failure to deliver, her predecessors, all male, usually suffered less personal abuse. And while we have often discussed the sexism of the blog boys when it is flung against other women, the constant attacks against the woman who has done the hardest job of all and gotten something done, is hardly noticed. Maybe that’s because she and her supporters have not constantly used the fact that she is a victim of virulent sexism in her defense, never mind as an excuse. Maybe that’s the difference between a woman of real substance and one who allows herself to be a symbolic prop for a man’s faltering presidential campaign. The speech for which Nancy Pelosi was attacked by the Republicans this week was exactly the one she was supposed to give as the leader of House Democrats. It is her job to rally Democrats to take what she believed was the most responsible AVAILABLE* course of action on that day. She almost certainly knew the vote would be close and it was her job to convince Democrats to her point of view. It was a difficult bill to support. Is it any surprise that Republicans resent the Democratic leader for doing her job? As always, they are only happy when Democrats roll over and play dead. Too bad so many on the blogs aren’t happy with her under any circumstances. Listening to her, how could anyone not hear her deep anger at being forced to accept the thing. The Republicans have screwed things up so badly, done the most irresponsible and dishonest things with full warning, that she is forced to float a measure she knew was deeply unpopular and which she couldn’t have really liked. I think it was a genuine expression of her fury at having this forced on the country, the Democratic members of the House, the relevant Democratic leaders and herself. And she was certainly aware that the Republicans would be hypocrites intent on some kind of treachery. And, being what they are, the Republicans delivered on that most predictable treachery. No one in the world honestly believes that a single Republican was going to be swayed by anything she said. As always, they weren’t looking for a reasoned argument, they were looking for political advantage. Have you seen the list of the 12 Republican crybabies yet? Since they must have declared themselves, otherwise how would the Republican leaders know their number, you would think they would come forward and identify themselves. If such a list of duplicitous disciples actually existed. Well, I’m happy to confess I’m a Nancy Pelosi fan. I’m proud of her and of my party for having her as the leader of The House. I think she’s doing the best job she can, it’s almost certain that the list of obstacles here is only part of what she has to contend with. She deserves more support than she gets. * Yeah, the bail out stinks to high heaven but not nearly as much as the decades long deregulation and creation of instruments of legalized theft that got us here today. We do seem to forget what life was like under Hastert. The original Paulson plan would have passed intact, with scads of other, horrible items attached. Look at what the Senate did to prevent a filibuster after the antics of the House Republicans earlier in the week. Republicans would have seen it as an opportunity to liquidate the rest of the treasury and a chance to run up another two trillion in debt. There would have been no cap on executives pay, no equity stake for taxpayers (no less than the new creditors), no talk of mortgage readjustment (which should be done as soon as possible, if it becomes possible). Apparently the collective memory of the blogosphere doesn’t extend as far back as two years ago. The Republicans are the ones who made the mess, Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats working on the rescue were trying to keep things from falling apart in October of this year. The jocks on the blogs also seem to think Democrats have a free hand to push through their agenda, ignoring all of the points made above. But then, they seemed to think they had that power in the minority, before they had the shaky majority of today Does anyone forget, Bush is still in office, his appointees are in charge of all of the relevant executive branches, Republicans hold a close minority in both houses and there is an election just coming up. Nancy Pelosi should be seen as a realist who is juggling an enormous number of balls all at once. One of the most important of those is her responsibility to Democrats in the House and at large. It’s her job to try to get a bigger majority in the November election. Given the limits of her present reality, it’s one of her biggest responsibilities. Sometimes I wonder what the blogs would be like if more people with less leisure time and lower incomes could comment more. It all looks so easy and simple when you’re not the one who actually has to get something done. And you wonder what things would be like if so many weren’t, eternally, children. Note: The electronic media seems to understand that it is just possible that Democrats might win big this time and get the chance to exercise real power. There seems to be a minor start at covering their contingencies, especially on some of the cabloids. Don’t buy it. They need to be legally required to serve the public interest and they need to be broken up and their ownership diversified. There has to be a modification of laws so that it is only a free standing media company that should be allowed to use that most limited of publicly owned resources, The Peoples’ time. Any media operation that is a subsidiary of a conglomerate will always serve the interest of their parent company. That corruption of the fourth estate has to be ended if anything like self-government is to survive. Freedom of the press to misinform and distort for the owners profit runs a distant second to the right of The People to cast an informed vote. The press is as dependent on that as The People are dependent on accurate information. We can’t continue to pretend this isn’t a basic fact of life. They’ve fully earned our distrust for the past forty years, there is no reason for Democrats or others interested in democracy to allow them any leeway. |
Promoting “Lowered Expectations” as Good Enough Isn’t Nearly Good Enough by Anthony McCarthy
| Ah, the “lowered expectations” game, invented, I believe, to sell idiot Republican puppets when no one could expect them to win even the fluff ‘debates’ we get. I seem to first recall it during the rise of the assertion that Republicans who couldn’t construct a syllogism if you numbered the parts of it and handed those to them in the right order, were qualified to be president.* As a child of blue collar America who, by any financial definition, remains a member of the same class, I am jamping sick and tired of the condescending talk about “hockey moms, soccer moms and Joe Sixpack” that spews out of the mouths of people making six and seven figure incomes, some who never attended a public school in their lives and who all think they have their thumb on the heart beat of the heartland because they touched down somewhere between Manhattan and LA during a connecting flight this year. And I’m sick and tired of the assertions of air heads in the media attributing their own lack of interest in reality, to us. If Sawyer and Gibson, the ABC morning date couple, has any interest other than their pointless careers and incomes, I’ve yet to see evidence of it. Forgive me for saying it, but unlike virtually the entire yakking class, most blue collar workers know how to produce something other than repetitions of talking points gleaned from Republican front sources, when those are not handed to them directly by the Republican Party. To get back to pundit logic. Contained in that condescending stereotype is the idea that the large majority of Americans are too stupid to look past sports and drinking to understand that life is hard and that a lot of our problems are complex and hard to solve. Which is exactly what you would expect from oligarchs and plutocrats. “Soccer mom and Joe Sixpack” are white versions of insulting minstrel show stereotypes, a fact that the left could harness to better effect than adopting these anti-democratic ideas as stipulated assumptions. The People can grasp that life is more complicated than the buzzwords and talking points Sarah Palin’s handlers stuffed into her mouth this month. With some encouragement, The People can be rather impressive. We can even govern ourselves better than the oligarchs would ever want us to. The American People don’t want their business conducted by someone who can meet the lowered expectations of Charles Gibson and the rest of the corporate Republican media, they want someone who might actually do something to make their children a better and more dignified life than can be had from Bud and circuses. We also deserve much better. Anyone who tries to sell us anything but the best should be kicked out the door. Note: For fans of that kind of thing, what do you think of the idea that the bizarre Vaudeville style ads in the McCain-Palin campaign are supposed to elicit images calling to mind degrading black stereotypes in an attempt to frame the Obama campaign? I can easily imagine their behavioral-sci hirelings coming up with that idea. I’ve yet to figure out another explanation for it. * It came about the same time the League of Women Voters had candidate debates yanked out of their competent hands, as the historian GWPDA pointed out on another blog the other day. But considering that interesting point will get me onto the folly of process liberalism and that’s not what this is about. |
Friday, October 03, 2008
What is This, Maher for Theocracy? by Anthony McCarthy
| Note: This isn’t a movie review. It’s a movie promotion campaign review. Here’s a rule of life, when Bill Maher has taken it up, you know a fad has just about run its course. I might watch him if I don’t have to wash my hair that night, but not if I’ve got to pay for it. I’ve seen Maher’s act and didn’t find it very good. He’s a bargain basement George Carlin - Gary Collins IVF clone as seen on TV. Being antsy (and, yes, very grouchy) about this upcoming election as it is, suspecting it’s only things like the future of democracy here and possibly the fate of the planet at stake, I’m not happy to see that Bill Maher has a movie opening this week that jumps on the seriously old band wagon of religious mockery. And it has gotten old. I’ve yet to hear or read any of the latest crop that Bertrand Russell didn’t say better twenty years before even I was born. But then old Bertie generally had an idea of what he was talking about. At best, the new crop might have read a bit of Russell on religion, though most likely filtered and watered down through, well we don’t have to get into them here again. I’ve got nothing against mockery, it’s one of those things ideas should be ready to defend themselves against. But it’s got to be accurate, fair and actually funny in a way that hasn’t been done to death. Without those, it starts off stale. Maher’s other stuff has the ambiance of the day-old rack as it is. What I’ve seen in the promotional material for this movie, one would imagine some of his best stuff, it looks pretty boring. Another thing, mockery that has a potential to cost something, has to be worth the risk. My fear is that coming a month before this enormously important election, with the pathetic McCain campaign looking for any dirty trick and trumped up opening they can dream up to get them the margin of victory, having a jack ass release a much hyped movie on this subject is tailor made for Republican use. If they don’t see that this would go right along with his Palin ‘values-voters’ gambit, they’re too stupid to be in charge of movie releases. As one seems to need to always remember, it doesn’t have to work with everyone for it to throw the election, it just has to work with those it might work for. It doesn’t even have to be a worthless and lousy movie to do that. It just has to have that effect. It would be a minor irony if Maher’s movie did what Ben Stein’s earlier one apparently failed to do, generate a cause celebre for the Republican right and influence this election in their favor. With their previous stated experience, I don’t believe that the guys doing this release couldn’t have anticipated the possibility of something like that happening. I believe they are hoping to cause a big stink before the election and to financially benefit from it and that it’s what their timing is all about. If I’m right about that, what a bunch of irresponsible jerks. As predictable as anything, some who might read this will say that I’m calling for censorship. No I’m not. This is a call for responsible timing for a commercial release of what is almost certainly a movie of no informative value. Did they even consider a Christmas season release date, when it would have gotten them a similar bang for the schmuck effect but after it couldn’t carry the clear and present danger of doing what they purport to be trying to prevent, electing religio-fascists at the polls? By all means set off William Donohue in December, what Christmas season would be complete without him taking a semi-coded swipe at “Hollywood Jews”. That background music is as familiar a part of the season as “Cha-cha-cha-chia”. We just don’t need it this month. |
Friday critter blogging (by Suzie)
![]() "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" opens today. Meanwhile, searching Petfinder for Chihuahuas, you can find Salvador Dali, Mr. Tooth Fairy, Charlie Tucker, Rhett Butler, Don Juan, Rocky Raccoon, Darth Vader and Captain Underpants. There's Cocoa Puff, and Coco & Puffs. Like these last two, some dogs get named together, e.g., Pistachio and Banana-Nut and Little and Rowdy. It looks like Jaymes got adopted, but Bartles is still available. Some people have noticed that Chihuahuas are Teenie and Tiny. If you see a dog with "wink" in its name, you can bet it has only one eye. Some have people names. I can just imagine saying, "Hey, there, Bob, you've got some really big ears." A number are named after Mexican food, such as Frito, Taco, Chalupa but ... Kosher? That's not right. There's Vizsla, who's not a vizsla. And it's Aye Carumba, not I-Ca-Rumba. Some have no names, just numbers. Three Chihuahuas are titled Threesome! Some wear dresses, jewelry, flowers, bandannas (read this if you're interested in Southern culture), oversize neckties and I don't know what this is, or this either. All would make a great companion to the right person. ------------ Updated for a brief movie review: "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" turned out better than I thought. It's much more about girls finding their voice and their purpose, and throwing off consumerism and classism. But to make it palatable to boys, virtually all the dogs that do anything worthwhile - other than the B.H. Chi herself - are male. Here's the WaPo review. |
Sarah Palin: Staunch union supporter? (by Skylanda)
Holed up in McCain's shabby little shack in Sedona in preparations for the VP debate, Sarah Palin took time out to grant an interview to a radio show where she tried - once again - to Relate To The Little Guy. Geez, man, she lost, like, $20,000 in the recent Wall Street fiasco! Thank goodness she has a six-figure income to cushion that tough blow. But that's a line any politician could tow these days. Here's the real groaner: “We’ve gone through periods of our life here with paying out of pocket for health coverage until Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs,” she added. “Early on in our marriage, we didn’t have health insurance, and we had to either make the choice of paying out of pocket for catastrophic coverage or just crossing our fingers, hoping that nobody would get hurt, nobody would get sick. So I know what Americans are going through there.”Awesome. Plugging unions on the Republican campaign trail...who woulda thunk! Of course, this would be a little less crass if she weren't speaking for the party notorious for policies that do everything possible to undermine organized labor - ya know, the party shunned for just about every union endorsement across the nation for their anti-union policies. Pro-union? Nah, methinks this is just a case of I got mine, now screw you and yours. Oh, and while I'm on the topic of unions? In the midst of the current headline grabbers-du-jour, the Employee Free Choice Act - that would reduce the barriers to forming and joining unions - hasn't gotten much press. It's worth knowing about. It's worth supporting. It's a good time to give it a quick look. |
The myth of objectivity (by Suzie)
They were right. My agenda was to improve conditions for women inside our newsroom and coverage of women inside our pages. But opponents saw a feminist agenda as more subversive – a breach in their belief that journalists must be objective. They were right about that, too, but didn’t realize they were not objective, either. They thought that being a feminist made me biased. It didn’t occur to them that not being a feminist was also a political stance. No one is neutral. You challenge the system, or you support it, even if it’s just with your silence and inaction. Feminist philosophers have challenged objectivity. If journalists stopped pursuing it, they might have a shot at diversity, and maybe even truth. In Just the Facts: How “Objectivity” Came to Define American Journalism, David Mindich traces its rise in the 19th century. Journalism took on the methods of science: detachment, nonpartisanship, reliance on facts, and balance. Journalists make some exceptions for columns and features, but for news, they are supposed to put aside feelings, biases, beliefs, experiences, cultural norms, values – everything that makes them an individual. But what if people can’t catalog everything that has influenced them? What if a residue of prejudice remains? What if they can’t tease apart mixed feelings? Stories are more than lists of facts; journalists describe what they perceive. They often interpret what others say. They use their judgment to decide which issues and events to cover, whom to quote, which quotes to use, what material to include, what images to shoot, how to edit it, how to play the story, etc. They are not scientists staring into a petri dish. News coverage influences stories. How can journalists be objective when they are part of the action? Those who think objectivity is an impossible ideal may still strive to be fair and balanced. But they, too, must make subjective decisions about whom to quote, which arguments have merit, etc. Outside their writing, they can express feelings and opinions as much as they like – as long as their bosses don’t mind and the public doesn’t find out. “Fair and balanced” is in the eye of the beholder. More than a decade ago, Sandy Nelson lost her reporting job because she worked for gay rights on her own time. The state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tacoma (Washington) News Tribune, saying it had a right to maintain “the appearance of objectivity.” The myth of objectivity has become the dirty little secret of the profession. Before the 20th century, many newspapers trumpeted biases to attract readers who shared their views or wanted another opinion. Now, when few cities have more than one daily newspaper, and a few corporations monopolize the media, it makes sense to claim objectivity. Media owners want readers, viewers and listeners to think they can get all sides, all viewpoints, from just one source. And they do not want to offend advertisers. This translates into a lowest-common-denominator journalism that supports the status quo. By continually cutting staff, the bosses leave little time for in-depth pieces. Those focus more on individual wrongdoing than systematic issues. The media pulls down powerful people from time to time, but does little to challenge the system that bestows that power. Thus, a journalist may vow to nail a politician, but is unlikely to say, “I’m going to expose capitalism.” A publisher blew up one day because I wrote on the longevity of Ms. magazine and another story on the growth of feminist bookstores, including a local one, for the features section. He complained there was too much feminism in the paper that day. But bosses don’t have to yell to make their point. Often when I wrote on controversial issues, I received little feedback. If I featured an alligator farm, however, I was praised for my writing and humor. Many journalists accept and reinforce the norms of the culture, both in and outside the newsroom. Welcome to “The Matrix.” In the past, for example, most believed domestic violence was a personal problem, with no larger implications for society. The women’s movement drew attention to domestic violence. Nevertheless, media coverage rarely links it to sexism – beliefs that men are superior and have a right to control women. Another example: Editors questioned whether a gay colleague could cover issues of sexual orientation. Heterosexuals were considered unbiased, even though many of the men ridiculed gays. The myth of objectivity breeds cynicism. Journalists who wanted to change the world find they can’t be advocates. They try to make stories fair to the point of quoting the usual extremist, even when they know those arguments can be picked apart. But who has time or space for that? The truth be damned. The myth of objectivity also counteracts diversity. If any good journalist can be objective, if they can produce fair stories, why seek employees with different backgrounds, experiences, etc.? Many feminists rely on differences when reporting information. Donna Haraway, writing in Simians, Cyborgs, and Women, says people shouldn’t mimic 19th-century scientists who thought of themselves as apart and invisible from that which they studied. People must connect with other points of view. No one view can encompass all perspectives. Consider a team assembled for a disaster. It may include a person who knows business, one familiar with the neighborhood, one who’s bilingual, one who has experience with such a disaster, and one good at getting colorful details. They may file from different locations, at different times. People putting together footage or rewriting copy know the situation will change. That’s how journalists could envision their business in general. They can gather only pieces of the truth, in hopes of creating as complete a picture as possible. They need people who look differently, not just ones who look different. They must recognize that they aren’t looking at the picture; they’re in it. (The Journalism and Women Symposium newsletter published this in 2003. I'm "reprinting" it here because another blogger already posted it.) |
Watched The Debate
Aren't you glad? The American debates are still something quite exotic to me, like a weird ritual where I'm not certain what the point might be. So I decided both to watch the debate and to gather all the post-debate pearls of wisdom the pundits were willing to offer to me. Here's what I learned: First, there were questions, presented by Gwen Ifill, for Governor Palin and Senator Biden to answer. However, it seems that those questions didn't really matter. You could talk about something else instead of answering the question you were posed, and Palin took advantage of that a lot, Biden a lot less. The assessment of the media pundits is that she did very well doing that. (Don't tell college students about this trick. They'll all start demanding the right to answer the question they would prefer instead of the one they were actually given to answer.) Second, the tone of the debate seemed to be very important. Was it funny enough? It appears it was not. Did the candidates wear their hearts on their sleeves enough but not too much? It seems that they did, because Biden mentioned the death of his wife and daughter and Palin mentioned her family. This is important, I have gathered, because if Palin and Biden had been pod-people they would have been trapped by those comments, not knowing human family feelings. Third, what about the folksiness? For some odd reason the Vice-President of the United States needs to be folksy. It may have something to do with preventing terrorism or with the hatred of elites (meaning geeks and nerds) or with that whole idea that you pick people for the most important jobs in this country by deciding whom you'd like to bed or to get drunk with. In any case, Palin won the folksiness competition. She was folksier than Biden who was too....senatorial. What is this folksiness? It seems to be the idea that ordinary people can use nothing but common sense and simple words to solve the complex problems of this world. This is of course exactly what George Walker Bush has been telling us for the last eight years! That's why we have been doing so very well. Palin plans to continue that never-failing recipe for success. More seriously, I gather that folksiness might be the same as being approachable and likeable and being able to relate to the problems of the common folk, and that kind of folksiness is laudable. It is not a substitute for the skills needed for the job, however. Fourth, I learned (from governor Palin) that America is an exceptional country, a shining city on the hill (a religious reference*), meant to lead the world. Now, some damned furriners might find that a wee bit insulting. Of course I'm not one of those. Nosir. Fifth and finally, I found out that both Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin are offering CHANGE from the way things have been done in Washington, D.C. in the past. For instance, a governor from Alaska is an outsider and therefore perfect for enacting some change. Sort of like a governor from Texas eight years ago. ----- P.S. I could have discussed what was said about policies and such but that isn't how debates are judged so I won't. Heh. P.P.S. *There may have been more religious references as a sort of code to the religious right. This was the case with one of Bush's debate speeches in 2004. |
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Dumb Broads
The other day I was reading Kathleen Parker's pleadings for the Republican Party to get rid of Sarah Palin on some blog that had reproduced it and scrolled down to the comments on the piece. One of the first ones was this:
When Parker later wrote about the horrible e-mails and comments her anti-Palin piece got from Republican partisans I wondered how she'd rate comments like the one above. My guess is that she's been getting a whole lot of them throughout her years of woman-bashing but that she took them as compliments about her own excellency. After all, it's great fun to be the only woman who is deemed capable of thought. Why am I singling out that one (rather funny) comment? Because I suspect that part of the great glee some liberals and progressives express in their Palin-bashing has to do with the freedom her opinions and statements give them to release that tiny little misogynist and still stay a good progressive. Because usually The First Woman* in some new field is picked carefully (just like The First Black was in professional baseball, say) and usually she's far superior in all sorts of characteristics to your average woman or man. That Palin wasn't picked that way goes without saying, but one can still pretend that she's the best women can offer. Or the best conservative women can offer. Such fun and games. --------- *She's the first Rebublican female vice-presidential candidate. |
People Inside People
Like those Russian dolls. Colorado has a proposal to amend its state constitution with a little piece about how a human being is defined as one from the moment of fertilization. Including the human beings in the freezers of fertility clinics, I guess. The obvious reason for doing this would be to allow the state later to ban all abortion should Roe be repealed on the national level. But the amendment could do all sorts of other fun stuff:
The more I think about amendments of this sort the more I see a horrible world for fertile women. Because all fertile women would be possible houses of other human beings and anything that fertile women do might, conceivably, hurt the little homunculus inside. You'd have to always check if the house is empty before you could let it be used in some manner which might endanger a fetus. For instance, a woman couldn't just have a glass of wine; she'd have to present a recent negative pregnancy test first. After all, you don't give alcohol to minors. Or a woman wanting to engage in dangerous sports would have to first present a negative pregnancy certificate, to prove that she's all alone. Any busybody could start demanding that a woman who has recently put on some weight should be tested for pregnancy, especially if she drinks or smokes and might be harming an innocent minor. Who knows? Better be sure. There might be invisible people inside her. Come to think about it, that weight gain bit is unnecessary. Any woman engaging in any risky behavior (running ten miles a day, say) should always be tested. Like daily. I don't see how such an amendment could ever NOT infringe on the human rights of adult women. Once you accept the idea that there are people inside people and that the outermost person is not allowed to refuse that inside-person, however it got inside her (even if by rape), well, women could kiss their human rights goodbye. |
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
The Secret Demographic Topic in These Elections
Is the one that dares not speak its name. This one, from a recent poll about Obama vs. McCain:
Now look at those enormous advantages for McCain among white men! How many articles have you read about this phenomenon? As compared to, say, all those articles about whether women will go for McCain because of Palin? Do you know what I think? I think we can learn enormous amounts about the culture by asking why we don't discuss the voting patterns of white men. |
Palin's Anti-Choice Stance
Her interview with Katie Couric has some information on her pro-life principles:
This is pretty confusing. Note that Couric starts by noting that Palin believes the hypothetical fifteen-year old, raped and impregnated by her father, should not have recourse to a legal abortion. But Palin does NOT address that at all. Instead, she appears to suddenly turn pro-choice: She would "counsel to choose life." If abortion was made illegal for victims of rape and/or incest, nobody could "counsel" the victim to "choose" life, she'd be forced to bring the pregnancy to term. When Couric returns to the question whether abortion should be made illegal in the example she starts with, Palin continues using the choice metaphor as if there was any choice left after the laws have been changed. She's scared of saying plainly that she would ban abortion in all cases except the one where the woman's life is at immediate risk. Never mind if the woman was raped by her father (or by some stranger who just decided that she should bear children), never mind if she will end up chronically ill forevermore. Never mind that there would be no choice for women left in Palin's ideal world: She still uses the word "choice". And what's this all about: "And if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anybody end up in jail for having had an abortion? Absolutely not."? So Palin believes abortion is murder. Yet there would be no prison sentence for that murder? I recommend that Palin looks at the criminal codes of the countries where abortion is illegal. Women who have had abortions do, indeed, end up in jail. |
Silence?
I've tried writing on several topics tonight. Not going to happen. Instead, I offer you Wittgenstein's "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" or "What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence." Well, I sort of offer you that, in a musical form. Hee. |






















