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

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Three cups of cheese (by Skylanda) 

There's book going around these days, you might have heard of it, called Three Cups of Tea. It's by a guy named Greg Mortenson, who stumbled off of a failed assault on K2 'round about 1993 and into a small Pakistani village, where he promised to return the hospitality of those who helped him by building a school. He went home, he returned, and he built a bridge, and then a school. And then he made it his life's mission to build lots of schools, in one of the most contentious areas of a very contentious planet, at a fair amount of peril to self and soul.

Usually, do-gooder books by Americans (and other westerners) abroad do not sit well with me. Usually they are entirely too rife with the spoils of moral superiority, and entirely too charged with the self-important notion of one's own role in a moving scene largely too fast and furious for anyone but the self to take note of one blathering foreigner mucking up the landscape. The last foreigner who wrote a good tome about do-gooder'ing abroad was Paul Farmer - the Boston-based doctor who has spent about half his life establishing world-class community-based health care in Haiti - and even he has a few rare moments of such intense self-righteousness it makes the breeze blow backward.

But I digress.

So this Mortenson guy, he ain't all bad. Much of the gist of his book is that poverty is grist for the fundamentalist mill (he kinda glosses over the way that poverty is compounded in that region by the seasonal migration of the trekking crews, which juxtapose some of the planetary heroics of elitism over the sorest hot-spots of deprivation in the world, but hey, everyone's got a blind spot, right?), and that education is the key to opening up equality and quashing fundamentalism - and terrorism - before it even begins. This is pretty heady stuff. It was not a very popular notion right after 9/11; it's all kinds of trendy now, though in a fairly good way. Moreover, he emphasizes again and again the importance of educating girls; he didn't discover or pioneer the data on the effect of educating girls on improving standards of living in a community, but he champions this notion like nobody's business. Educating girls in some of the most conservative, fundamentalist regions of the world: tough stuff. Admirable, even. I kinda dug the book, western do-gooder-isms and all.

So I was fascinated to see the guy talk when he came through my town on his recent book tour. His talk didn't entirely disappoint; he does hammer some politics home, especially in his insistence that whatever Obama might get right, he's dead-on wrong if he thinks that what Afghanistan needs is another tens of thousands of American troops on its soils wreaking even more havoc than we've already wreaked over the last seven (count 'em, seven) years that we have already spent there.

But his talk is a lot more off-the-cuff than his book, and it's always a little disconcerting to see the disconnect between a controlled descent into a topic and a conversational parsing of opinion. First and foremost, he loses the gravity his own quest by delving into the sort of We Are the World feel-good rhetoric that is equal parts smarm and unadulterated schlock. Yeah, for anyone whose seen his talk, I know: his pre-teen kid helped write that cheeseball song (I'd link to it, but it's hard to find online...best I can do is the amazon page for the CD), it's not meant to appeal to adults. Problem is, once you stick it in your stock Power Point presentation, it becomes impolite for the adult audience not to cough a few times over it. Kids have the right to feel that they are doing great things by throwing pennies at poor people - that's part of being a kid who eventually grows into a compassionate maturity; adults who feel that way (gatherings of eighties pop stars entirely withstanding) generally are not nice people to be around, especially if you happen to be on the receiving end of those charitable pennies (and even moreso if you don't happen to show properly gracious humility for being the beneficiary of such enormous generosity as unwanted pennies thrown your way). I always find it awkward, then, to be asked to oooh and aaaah over what I largely consider to be an insult to people experiencing a whole lot of trouble in the world.

That personal bit aside though, he emphasizes the power of individuals to do great things, most often by using the stories of the Pennies for Peace campaign that engages children to gather up spare change for his school-building missions. That's all nice and good and all - I'm all for indoctrinating the young'uns as soon as you can get 'em - but in propping up that effort as a solution, it privileges charity over justice in that peculiar way that people do who want the world to look nicer while not giving up any of the privilege that caused the world to look sorta ugly in the first place. As if somehow wealthy white kids in Waldorf schools in Minnesota doing their holiday do-gooder project can ameliorate oppression...ya know, that kind of oppression that you can really only achieve from being batted around for thirty years between the Cold War super-powers and sundry warlording marauders gunning for control of the world's finest opium crop. Ya know, that kind of oppression. The kind that Mortenson demures from really delving into, because it really is more fun to talk about how the pennies in your pocket can save the world, when really, world save-age (to steal an apt phrase from the Whedonverse) is a whole lot more complicated than that. It doesn't take charity to save the world; it takes realizing that one nation using a quarter of the world's oil spells desolation for others that need those resources, or just don't need to lose a war whose main purpose is to see a pipeline run across a contested territory to feed the oil thirst of the west. It doesn't take pennies to save the world; it takes a mass down-ratcheting of our expectations of what kind of lifestyle some 300 millions Americans can reasonably sustain - how many SUVs we can drive, how many McMansions we can dwell in - to reasonably expect to house and maintain the world at large in a reasonable standard of living. It'll take a lot more than schools to save the world if those schools are routinely caught in the crossfire of trade made profitable purely on the prohibition of drugs in the western nations, a prohibition suspiciously profitable to large number of US corporations - especially those who sell high-tech police gadgetry and man high-tech prisons. To steal straight from Isabel Allende, it doesn't take charity, it takes justice. Justice for Afghanistanis, justice for every petty pot smoker picked up in a rather unjustified drug war. There's a lot of justice unmet out there, and pennies for schools in Pakistan are a small drop in a very large ocean of need - need that will be largely unmet as long as long as we rely on individual charity instead of systematic justice to prop up our sense of right and wrong.

Ninety percent of the US once supported George Bush during the era of his rush into Afghanistan; I wasn't among those people (if nothing else, I had too much to lose: immediate family in the line-up to the front), but you can't tell me that everyone who cheers on Greg Mortenson today when he yammers about pennies and peace was among the rarified ten percent that wasn't hooting and hollering for violence when the mood struck fancy. It's popular now to feel good about feeling good about the Muslim world; it hasn't yet become popular to do something besides throw the cast-offs of children at it.

Someday, maybe we'll get there. I'm not counting on the Greg Mortensons of the world to light our way.

Cross-posed from my blog at Loose Chicks Sink Ships.
|

Ethics and gender (by Suzie) 



       The Associated Press reports on a survey by the Josephson Institute on lying, cheating and stealing among U.S. high school students.  
       Boys came out looking worse. By statistically significant margins, more boys agreed with these statements: "In the real world, successful people do what they have to do to win, even if others consider it cheating." "A person has to lie or cheat sometimes in order to succeed." "People who are willing to lie, cheat, or break the rules are more likely to succeed than people who are not." More girls thought: "Being a good person is more important than being rich." "It's not worth it to lie or cheat because it hurts your character." Yet, boys and girls scored pretty much the same when asked how they rated compared with other people they know.  
        The AP asked whether kids these days are worse than kids in the olden days. As usual, no one asked questions about gender differences, such as: Why do boys appear to be less ethical than girls? What implications does this have for girls in school, the workplace and their personal lives?  
        Think of politics, in which men still dominate the upper echelons. What may seem like playing the game to some people may seem unethical to others.  
|

The First Step Is To Admit You’ve Got A Problem by Anthony McCarthy 

Maybe because of her long service on behalf of us as the first questioner at press conferences, Helen Thomas has take the bold step of using the dreaded “D” word. We are in a depression. The word itself is forbidden, using it is believed will make things worse. Well, when your economic prosperity was largely a matter of sustaining a fantasy life, determinedly ignoring the reality of the destroyed environment and enslavement of unseen people, the temptation is to keep up the pretense. I’ve said here recently that I believe people are always tempted to act as badly as they think they can get away with, children certainly tend to. Well, we can’t get away with it any more. The ruined environment, the inability of overseas wage slaves to subsist on less than the near to nothing they are allowed in today’s ultra-capitalism, and the financial piracy of the Bush years cannot be sustained. The patched up puppet show started falling apart some time ago. Just as in the 1920s, many of us have been living in a depression for some years now.

It’s the time to call this depression what it is. The dramatic impact of it, the possible short term damage is necessary to jolt the public and the aristocracy out of their delusion. Reality is real, you can’t improve things without facing the truth. Taking the pain of stating the truth will make changing the underlying policies possible. Without facing the awful situation the old policies and beliefs produced, we won’t get the change we need.

Just as FDR found it necessary to try things and to quickly change policies to match the gradual revelation of crises of the 1930s, Barack Obama will have policies that evolve and change radically. What policies we get will be very different than those we can guess at by looking at his early appointments. None of us, including them, know more than a part of the problems they have inherited. I’m hoping that Obama’s administration will be able to adapt to reality instead of holding fast to the old free market religion. They might since they will be working for him and not his predecessors. But they won’t have much time. They’re going to have to adapt fast. And they’re going to have no more than eight years to do it. If we are very unfortunate they might only get four years. The push back from the pirates who own the media will be enormous, it is already starting. There are still idiots working on their behalf who are trying to revise history to make the failures of Coolidge and Hoover into the failures of Franklin Roosevelt. As people of Helen Thomas’s generation die and the direct memory of that period fails, their deeper knowledge will pass away. And a large part of the population still want to believe in the fairy tale.

I am hoping that facing the truth, that unbridled materialism is unsustainable, will lead to the acceptance that equality, generosity, self-sacrifice and fairness are, in fact, what produces a better life. That was what saved the United States from the fascism that took hold in Europe and Japan during the Great Depression years. The foundations of fascism were present here, in Jim Crow and other forms of bigotry, they are still here. The fact is that it is was ever only the idealism of an effective majority that kept them from doing worse than they did. It could have been worse, it still could.

Now, at the beginning of his first term in office, Barack Obama has to start telling The People the truth, the whole truth as he learns it. He has to present what we have, what we can produce and to show people that it is being distributed fairly and according to the best of our natures. He has to make dramatic demonstrations that no matter how bad it gets that the pain will be distributed equally, that fairness and honesty win out over the contracted theft of the of liars and cheats.

He will be counseled to keep the bad news confidential, that The People aren’t mature enough to accept it. The would be ruling class believes nothing so fervently as that The People are too immature to face the truth. If Obama begins to tell the truth they will start talking about Jimmy Carter’s entirely true “Malaise” remark. Carter’s message wasn’t the problem, it was true. Things weren’t sufficiently bad and the reality of it could still be denied. Using the truth against Carter, the media sold us Ronald Reagan, George Bush I and after the interregnum of Bill Clinton George Bush’s lack luster son. Now the lie that sustained three of the worst presidents of our history is over, it is time to put them in the same box as the Republican presidents of the 1920s and bury their ideology. Let’s put a stake through its heart this time.

Obama is going to have to go over the heads of the discredited media, he is going to have to do so now and dramatically. The People won’t make the right decisions unless they know the truth, Barack Obama will not be able to convince the congress if The People continue buying the demagoguing lies that put Republicans in office over the past thirty years. I suspect that, in time, he will find that radical reorganization of broadcast and cable media are essential to The People governing themselves and producing a democracy. He doesn’t seem to know that yet, I believe he will.
|

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Viola Uotila Sings and Plays Kantele 

A comment on another blog last night reminded me of these You Tubes. The little girl is very talented. I have no idea what the words of the folk songs mean but the kid’s got real potential.

Pilvien paimen

Ruoho huojuu tuulessa


In looking for more information, it was odd how Google translation consistently called her “he”. I’d like an explaination, if one is available.

Posted by Anthony McCarthy.
|

Pursuing Happiness in All the Wrong Places by Anthony McCarthy 

Decided to repost this piece from my defunct blog while putting the ads from Friday's paper in the recycling bin. It's a pretty disgusting waste of trees. And that's after the story of the sales clerk trampled to death at WalMart and the shooting in the toy store. What is so wrong is that it is a holiday alleged to celebrate the man who said you could serve either God or Mammon. Clearly America has chosen Mammon, well after it was warned.

The estimable columnist
, Derrick Jackson, has a similar take on this subject.

Y
ou can find happiness in friendship, you find it in friendly encounters with strangers and in your family and friends. We need basic material security to be happy but it isn't happiness. Short of famine relief, happiness doesn't come by truck.

Useless buying and hoarding is a sign of fear, of families and communities failing. This covers everything from trying to buy respect to the exercise machine covered with clothes you can't wear. You aren't any better off than you started out but now you've got another payment to make. Enough turns to more than you want and that turns to more than you can ever use. You have to rent a storage unit to get it out of your house. If you didn't buy it to begin with you might be able to afford basic security and have time to enjoy life with other people.

The McMansion craze that is killing off what's left of the middle class and destroying open land is an attempt to escape the isolated anxiety that life has turned into. Families don't talk to each other in towns full of strangers who are suspicious of each other. And once you're locked in the big house everyone goes off to watch TV in their own rooms. That is until your mortgage rate gets adjusted and you're looking for somewhere you can afford.

Work is even worse than that. It is competitive, cynical and insecure. You are being used and used up. You might not even have the hope that your children can get an education that will give them a better life. They're doomed to even worse than you have it and they resent everything.

You won't find happiness in the package labeled American Dream and the standard alternatives are worse. Forget the myth of the rugged individualist. That is just as phony as the thing they are supposedly escaping. No one is more conformist than those often violent, insecure, tough guys. Look at what happens to one of them who practices real individualism. Their pack turns on them.

The happiness found in decent relations with other people can't be bought or sold, it can't be won by winning. You have to make friends with your family and your neighbors. You can't do that watching a giant TV or DVD. You have to abandon the debt ridden, competitive culture that those continually pitch at us. It's hard to do, especially with children, but it's a lot easier than building a sixteen room house that you'll never own. Debt is a taste of slavery.

When you get your life back you can get past pride. That's a desperate fill-in for self-respect. Self respect comes from getting outside yourself and doing something for someone else. Self-respect gives you the confidence to say no to the sales pitch. Without self-respect no one else is going to respect you, no matter how much stuff you own.
|

Friday, November 28, 2008

Gated communities (by Suzie) 



            In a recent thread, someone talked about “gated communities” as synonymous with bastions of rich, racist whites. I’ve heard that a lot in the years that I’ve lived in gated communities.
            To those who say gated communities are elitist and exclusionary, I’d counter that expensive housing keeps poor people out of those neighborhoods, whether there’s a gate or not. I understand that gated communities may function in different ways around the world. In my county, however, they don’t appear to exclude people of color, or hinder people on foot or bicycles.
            In the United States, a lot of retirement centers and apartment complexes are gated, and some residents have low incomes. I live in a sprawling apartment complex separated from other sprawling apartment complexes by fences or small lakes, otherwise known as wetland areas or drainage ponds. Because my complex is near a university and three large hospitals, most of our residents are students or people who work at the university or the hospitals. I moved here because it’s close to the cancer center where I’m a patient. Because it’s a newer complex, the design was the most disability-friendly. Income varies here, and a lot of people have roommates. There are people of different ethnic backgrounds. None are rich, unless they’re anthropologists who have come to study us.
           My ZIP code includes poor neighborhoods with high crime. If people get enough money, they move to an apartment like mine. If a bag of money fell out of the sky onto my lap, I’d buy a house. Few people volunteer to live in high-crime neighborhoods just so they can build community spirit.
           The owners of apartment complexes may install walls, fences and gates in hopes of attracting people who fear crime. But they have many other reasons. In complexes with a lot of young people, for example, a gate can reduce the number of out-of-control parties.
           At my complex, people enter the gate either with a key card, or by calling a resident to buzz them in. Like many gated complexes in my county, our gate is open half the time, and there’s no guard sizing up people to see if they belong.
           Two weeks ago, our gate was broken once again, and young men with guns (such a bad combination!) accosted a woman in the parking lot, stealing her car. Some people say gates don’t provide any extra security, and that may be true. I haven’t examined the studies. Nevertheless, I'm glad the gate got fixed. 
|

How I feel (by Suzie) 

Oh, no, the compulsory Christmas season has begun, even before we can finish our Thanksgiving leftovers. Neighbors already have put up their tree.

This is a photo of a crying Cassie Koehn, whose mother, Donna, blogged about how to keep Santa from terrifying your toddler. Doesn't this Santa look like Uncle Sam in the old recruitment posters?
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 


 
          In July, I wrote:
Mark Derr says small dogs are stigmatized as women’s pets. Bigger dogs are associated with men and work, such as herding sheep or finding prey for hunters. But a Chihuahua? It's just a companion, and being a companion has little value in our society.
          In Barbara Walters' interview with the Obamas, Barack says he doesn't want a small "girly" lap dog. The family must have a "big, rambunctious dog." My Chihuahua and I are growling. 
|

Thursday, November 27, 2008

More Nice Stuff 



This video about snow in Helsinki brought back memories of going out late at night when I was the first creature to meet the new snow. Magical moments, those. (video link courtesy of Gilly Gonzales)



The Last Winter from Ilmari Aho on Vimeo.


And here's a fun website for cat lovers and others, too.

|

A Nice Picture 






The world can be a beautiful place.


And Butterfly by Rajaton




|

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Opposition Research 



Here's a funny wingnut article for you to read:

The four-year ascent of Barack Obama from state senator to president marks not just the triumph of a man, but the coming of age of a movement.

That movement belongs to liberal (or "progressive") Democrats, who in less than a decade have remade themselves. Once respected only in academia and the news media, they have become a fighting force. They systemically digitized the means of political organization and strategy, with the ultimate goal of dominating the political system — "Crush their spirits!" was Daily Kos blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga's pre-election rallying cry.

The Left's online movement is consciously modeled after the Goldwater-and-Reagan-era conservative movement. To those trying to build the Left, the vast right-wing conspiracy was an object not of scorn, but of admiration. They studied the Right's network of think tanks, issue groups, and talk-show hosts, looking for clues on how to push a message with brutal efficiency. They took these lessons to heart and shaped them to fit the web. Ironically, today's Right has much to learn from them.

The Left has created not just a collection of unshaven bloggers but a machine that beat the Right at its own game.

And so on and so on. We get to meet the big unshaven blogger boyz of the left blogosphere and we get to learn their great secret: Give people news, not opinions about the news!

And I guess, don't shave!

|

Thousand Leaves Torte 



My bravura baking number. Don't start it now for Thanksgiving. It requires more time than you probably have.

You need:

Cinnamon Pastry (recipe to follow)
Custard Filling (recipe to follow)
6 tbsps sugar
1 cup applesauce
1 tsp lemon juice
sliced almonds or grapes or chocolate buttons for top decoration (or all)

Cinnamon pastry:

3/4 cups butter
2 cups flour
1 tsp salt
1 tsp cinnamon
3-4 tbsps cold water

Cut butter into flour, salt and cinnamon until the batter looks like little droppings. Sprinkle in water, a little at a time, and toss with a fork (or scrunch in your clean hand) until all flour is moistened and pastry almost cleans the sides of bowl. Add more water if this doesn't happen. Gather pastry into a ball. Chill it in the fridge for half an hour or more.

Custard Filling

1/4 cup sugar
1 tbsp corn starch
1/4 tsp salt
1 cup milk
1 egg, slightly beaten to make it all gooey
1 tsp vanilla (or use vanilla sugar as part of the 1/4 cup sugar)
1/2 cup chilled whipping cream

Mix sugar, cornstarch and salt in saucepan. Stir in milk slowly. Cook over medium heat, stirring constantly until it thickens and boils. Keep boiling and stirring for about a minute longer.

Stir at least half of the sauce slowly into the egg. Then reverse by stirring that mixture back into the saucepan. Let come to a boil and stir for about a minute. Remove from heat and add vanilla (if you use vanilla sugar you can add it here also).
Cover and let cool. Put into the fridge to get chilled. Beat the whipping cream until stiff and fold into the custard. Do the last part (with the cream) just before you are ready to decorate. The custard you can make up to a day earlier.

Apple sauce recipe (right before the decorating moment):

Open a jar of the apple butter, add the 1 tsp of lemon juice to it. Taste-test. Adjust if needed.

Putting it all together:

Heat the oven to 425 American degrees. Divide the cinnamon pastry into six equal parts. Roll each of these out into a round circle (about seven inches in diameter). Place on cookie sheets and prick the circles all over with a fork. Sprinkle each with one tablespoon of sugar. Bake until light golden brown (watch them, they burn fast). About 12-15 minutes. Cool on wire racks (or if you don't have them you are in for a hell of a struggle and lots of broken pieces but they taste as good broken). Note: Unless your oven is vaster than mine you have to do these in relays and it takes quite a lot of time. A day before the planned eating is best.

Decorating:

Get a nice cake stand (flat-bottomed) and put the ugliest of the pastry circles on it. Spread with 1/3 applesauce mix. Add a second layer. Spread with 1/2 cup of custard-cream mix. Continue this way until you have no more pastry to add to the stack. Use the remaining custard sauce to cover the top before decorating it with almonds or such. I also cover the sides because mine are always ragged. Refrigerate before eating at least two hours. This is important.

Serve and watch it disappear in one second. Weep because of the work involved. It's very rich, by the way, so slice into very thin slices.

|

Whose Children Are They Anyway? 



Ruth Marcus has written a column in the Washington Post about the gendered division of labor in the Obama household. It sounds like many, many similar columns and books I've read about during my feminist years: It points out the problem and then sort of hides behind the back of the idea of general confusion felt by all women (read: all upper-middle class women who have careers) about how to balance family and work and the writer's great identification with women confused in that manner:

When Michelle Obama took to describing her new role as mom in chief, my first reaction was to wince at her words. My second reaction was to identify with them.

I was okay, actually, with what Obama said. But I worried: Did she have to say it out loud, quite so explicitly? Is it really good for the team -- the team here being working women -- to have the "mommy" stamp so firmly imprinted on her identity?

And most of all: What does it say about the condition of modern women that Obama, catapulted by her husband's election into the ranks of the most prominent, sounded so strangely retro -- more Jackie Kennedy than Hillary Clinton?

...

"My first job in all honesty is going to continue to be mom in chief," Obama told Ebony magazine, "making sure that in this transition, which will be even more of a transition for the girls . . . that they are settled and that they know they will continue to be the center of our universe."

Note the very beginning of this quote: It's not really possible for a female columnist in public just to say that she winced at Michelle Obama's words, because of what they meant from the wider angle of taking women's professional achievements seriously. She also has to say that she identifies with those concerns.

And of course she does. And if she did not, her column would be interpreted as an attack against all those women who struggle with the problem and who have solved it by cutting back on their own ambitions. So then Ruth Marcus had to add a bit about how she is facing the very same problem and appears to be ready to give in on her professional ambitions. That's what good women do, you know.

I understand the difficulty women have when writing about topics like this one. I even agree that the children should come first for Michelle Obama during the transition, because Barack certainly won't spend time with them. But it's really very unfortunate that these types of columns always shift around in this way, because we as readers end up discussing the question of how ambitious women can balance work and family, and then we fight over whether they should have careers at all and so on, when really what Marcus is talking about is this:

Obama seems comfortable, now, in the back seat, but that seeming serenity did not come easy. In "The Audacity of Hope," Barack Obama offers a glimpse of an earlier, more conflicted Michelle, whose "anger toward me seemed barely contained" as she struggled with the pull between work and family while her husband launched a run for Congress.

"No matter how liberated I liked to see myself as . . . the fact was that when children showed up, it was Michelle and not I who was expected to make the necessary adjustments," Barack Obama writes. "Sure, I helped, but it was always on my terms, on my schedule. Meanwhile, she was the one who had to put her career on hold."

Expected to -- by whom? Had to -- says who? I remember reading this passage two years ago, when the book came out, and thinking: Hey, buddy, she has to scale back only because you're not willing to.

And yet, Barack Obama could have been describing so many women today when he explained that, for Michelle, "two visions of herself were at war with each other -- the desire to be the woman her mother had been, solid, dependable, making a home and always there for her kids; and the desire to excel in her profession, to make her mark on the world and realize all those plans she'd had on the very first day that we met."

Marcus gets my admiration, actually, for daring to write on this topic at all. But still. See how that "Hey, buddy, she has to scale back only because you're not willing to" leads to a sudden escape back into putting the whole problem on the laps of women. I don't like it, because there's no way in hell women alone, without any change in the society or in the role of men can solve that problem. It. Cannot. Be. Done.

To pretend that it can be done only tells us that women can be a little more than the ever-hovering but silent and undemanding female angels traditionally assumed to take care of every successful man: they can also be the junior assistant office managers in the families of famous men.

Women can balance their own work, their partners' work, the children, the parents and grandparents, the Thanksgiving turkey, the birthday cards, the care of the sick, the need to look young and sexy, the dustbunnies under the beds, the school menus, the parental chauffeuring services. They can balance all that, somehow, while walking on the tightrope of cultural femininity, the demands of a labor market which still assumes that every worker has a little lady at home to give succor and psychological counseling and cleaning services. And then the woman-haters write how women don't have the same genius as men do, how no woman has ever invented something like the automobile or designed a great church, how women therefore are obviously biologically incapable of anything but -- well --- playing the role of Girl Fridays for famous men.

So I'm angry. How very awkward for me. But really, why can't we keep the limelight on the real question Ruth Marcus asked, for longer than one fleeting second: What can be done to make the sexual division of labor within families more egalitarian? And if we don't want to make those changes, how do we provide women with equal opportunities in other spheres of life? The answer must not focus on all the ways that women alone could somehow achieve that. Days are still only twenty-four hours long, even for us of the girly persuasion.

|

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

From The Diaries of Thad Tough. A Man About Town. 



I just began my great novel. What do you think?
-----


As I exited the men's room at the night club, I enjoyed the shine of my shoes. They even reflected the diamonds in my cuff links. My eyes slid down my impeccable front: Leather, silk and linen covering a perfect body. Don't hate me just because I'm perfect, I muttered gruffly, while unbuttoning my jacket to show the admiring masses what they envied about me.

But what is that pink spot? There, further down my front?

It was the tip of my penis peeking out through the broken zipper of my pants, like a blind snake tasting the air.



------

It's a joke! Just a joke.

|

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women (by Suzie) 

The United Nations chose today because it's the anniversary of the assassination of Patricia, Marie and Minerva Mirabal in 1960 in the Dominican Republic. (Photo taken from this site.) 
The sisters, known as the "Unforgettable Butterflies," became a symbol of the crisis of violence against women in Latin America. November 25th was the date chosen to commemorate their lives and promote global recognition of gender violence, and has been observed in Latin America since the 1980s.
For more information, go to the UNIFEM site.
|

More Silliness 



I've been baking pies and having deadlines.




|

Monday, November 24, 2008

I Love This Picture 







It's from Paul Krugman's blog at the New York Times, and shows the great merriment that was felt when the financial markets were finally liberated, yes, liberated from that horrible straight jacket of government regulation. To make the meaning more obvious, a chainsaw was used to cut through all that red tape.

Something for all of us to be grateful for, this Thanksgiving season, right?

Well, it gives us a few cynical lols. And a reminder that we must not lose our collective memory.



|

A Letter From Prison 



By a woman who was initially sentenced to like four lifetimes for running errands and wiring money for her cousin's crack cocaine business:

Her cousin was dealing crack cocaine at the time. While she never sold drugs, Lomax wired money and ran errands for him. He was arrested, and Lomax was charged as a co-conspirator in the drug-selling operation. Around this time, she converted to Islam, choosing the name Hamedah ("one who praises") Hasan. Refusing an offer of a lighter sentence if she testified against her cousin, she was found guilty and given two life sentences, two 40-year sentences, two 20-year sentences, a five and a four year sentence—despite the fact that she was a first time non-violent offender. Federal Judge Richard Kopf stated publicly he would have given her a fraction of that time had he not been bound by harsh mandatory sentencing guidelines, which had been rushed through Congress in the 1980s.

Her sentence was reduced to 12 years, then increased on appeal by the government to 27 years. So that's what it is, right now. There are first-degree murderers who get away with a shorter sentence.

The lessons to learn from Hasan's story are many, of course. But note that bad laws tend to stick around for a very long time. It might be a good idea not to rush them through so very fast in the future.

|

Piglets At The Teats of the Government 



Remember that phrase or something similar from the 1990s welfare debate? The poor were piglets sucking at the teats of the greatest mummy sow of them all: the federal government. That's how Bill Clinton ended up ending welfare for good and all that, after the Republicans took over the Congress and needed their own blood-red meal: the poor.

Except that welfare was never ended for the rich:

The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.

Following the discussion about who deserves a bailout is fascinating, because Detroit and its car-makers don't deserve one, never mind that the industry is one of the largest employer in the country, but banks, those halls of marble and pillars, do deserve one, because they have us all by the short and curly. They are too big to fail! Or rather, their failures will hurt all the little gals and guys much more than it will hurt the rich, and that is how the rich got saved, once again.

I am not belittling the need to do something about the economic recession, because the financial industries do have us by the short and curly. I just want to point out that when we ended welfare for all times we added lots of stuff about the poor having to work to get welfare payments and lots of time limits on how long any one family could stay on welfare. And all this for an expense that was around one dollar out of each one hundred dollars the federal government spent then! Now we are willing to hand over brazillion dollars and ask nothing back in terms of good behavior. Indeed, we are not even demanding that those in charge would be demoted, because we want stability in the banks! Nobody worried about the stability of families on welfare in the great and roaring nineties.

If you don't think that power goes with money in this society you are probably not a member of this society. And yes, Larry Summers got a cushy job in the Obama administration. He's a good economist and perhaps the country needs him. But slurs about us wimminfolk still only cause a hickup on the career rises of our boyz.

|

Some Fun 



This is Julia Nunes singing "Accidentally in Love". Note the use of a tissue box as a percussion instrument.




|

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Racism, Homophobia, and Prop 8 (by Skylanda) 

The dust is settling on the California proposition, and with some degree of retrospect (and distance - California will always be my home state, but hasn't been my home for a good six or eight years now), it's tempting to try to start untying the thorny knot that is diversity in America.

I am certainly not the first to give a stab at that knot, and I imagine I will be eons from the last. Nor do I possess any particular insider knowledge; I am both white and unabashedly straight, sympathetic to all comers, but also not prepossessed toward one side or the other. So, dangerous turf. Let me tread lightly, please-I-ask-of-myself.

This much is clear: Barack Obama's nomination brought out droves of voters from minority groups who have traditionally been less than entirely franchised; that force of legions brought victory for just about every progressive cause besides gay rights. The Prop 8 campaign is perhaps the most talked of but certainly not the only popular legislation that took advantage of this timing to spoil in favor of a very conservative social notion that retains a curry of favor among groups who are notably liberal on just about every other topic (even abortion: every state prop on abortion went down in resounding defeat, in states far more conservative than California). Prop 8 was largely funded by that unholy alliance of the Catholic and Mormon churches; it was duly supported by conservative black churches across the state, even as they spoke for a rather more liberal candidate in Obama. The split among black voters favored Prop 8 by some enormous margin - a forty-point tilt toward banning gay marriage, by some polling estimates.

So. Righteous anger, both sides: from gay rights community who (entirely rightly) protest that they alone have been left behind in the progressive sweep, that the party around the Obama victory reveals an even deeper homophobia - that sudden understanding that as long as a bunch of other progressive causes take home the cup, no one really cares about gay rights. Even in California. Flip side: from the African-American community that is fed up with decades of backsliding against the gains of the civil rights movement (to the place where we find increasing rates of incarceration among black men, and sky-high perinatal mortality rates among black women and infants) and which has expressed at times a whole lot of disinterest in being pinned with the responsibility for every civil liberties issue when this community is still one of the most beleaguered demographics in the United States.

**Sigh.**

Ignoring for a moment the fact that there are gay black people (which appears to have been totally lost in almost every public debate on this topic), some core issues have arisen that make the debate more bilious that it might need to be.

One is the actual effect of the African-American voting block on the outcome of Prop 8. According to the US Census Bureau, black Americans are cracking the demographic ceiling at a mere 7% of California's population. You can split that ninety-nine to one, and you still aren't going to call a majority for a proposition unless a much larger demographic is shoring up the race right behind them. That majority had to come largely from the massive demographic groups that dominate California: Caucasians at 43%, Hispanics at 36%, Asians at 12%. Homophobic African Americans did their part to pass Prop 8; but they could not have done it without the lily-white voting blocks of the inland empire. In fact, every African American could have stayed home on November 4th, and it still would have been a to-the-wire race (it passed roughly 48/52 - this is more math than I'm willing to do in my head, but even if whatever block of that 6% of African Americans that did vote that day had abstained on Prop 8 at that skewed ratio, it's a long stretch to say that would have overcome that gap between the overall yeahs and nays).

So, it's rather unlikely that African Americans alone - turning out in record proportion for their small population size - effected an enormous impact on Prop 8. Prop 8 was passed by the same demographics who always pass homophobic popular law: large blocks of conservative white voters (ya know, the ones who historically turn out to elections) with the backing of deep-pocket churches, solidified by scrapping together pieces of every other demographic they can get their hands on. (Colleen at The Swivet has done a much better job than I pulling the relevant data from the large southern counties - her post is worth a good visit.)

But still, it smarts: knowing that African American voters split so heavily toward the homophobic side. And therein lies the part of the debate that is precisely as bilious as you might expect, and rightly so.

From an outsider perspective, the crux of this hurt lies in the notion that every civil liberties movement has had to mature - usually quite painfully - to the notion the oppressions are bound up in each other. You can't have equal rights for women without having equal rights for blacks, because there are black women out there, and they count too. You can't become a shining beacon of equality for gay people without copping a nod to classism, because there's no kind of oppression like being poor, gay, and from the wrong side of town all at once. And because, from a nebulous metaphysical standpoint, you can't be free if you're still oppressing others. Legions of oppressed people might roll their eyes at the tragedy of the oppressors, but still: it's a nice sentiment, especially when it drives social movements.

Every one of these activist movements has been accused - ever so rightfully, not a doubt under the sun - of privileging their own private oppression over every other. That was the hallmark of race relations during the second wave of feminism: the demand that all women identify as women first in a movement dominated by individuals whose race and class lent lenses of invisibility to the idea that a woman can be raped, beaten, harassed, and discriminated against on the basis of her sex, and still consider race to be her primary oppression, or her primary identity above and beyond a sisterhood with women who don't face racism and classism. That was an ugly fight; it's been re-fought on the grounds of just about every one of these movements. The subsets of folks fighting these fights who haven't faced down this particular ogre yet? Ah, well then, you still have it coming. Good luck to you.

So third-wave feminism - a tenured generation very much wrapped up in this post-millennial era of gay liberation - feels like, ya know, this has been done. We got it: we get on the post for every issue on the block - race, class and gender are just the beginning. We hop to for disability rights, we marshal the battalions for gay rights. We swallowed hard when a woman president slipped from our grasp but we understood that other strides were equally important. We even get a little misty notion of species-ism and make a little noise for animal rights. I'm not making fun, I swear: this is good stuff. Even when we half-ass it, that noble notion is there: our oppressions, your oppressions, all wrapped up into one, my liberation is tied up in your liberation, fight the good fight for all, yadda yadda.

And so we are sometimes very surprised - and feel rather righteously betrayed - when it turns out that some other demographic of historically beaten-down peoples turn out to the polls to support their own causes, and none but their own. African Americans: turning out to root for a hometown hero; not so interested in giving props for gay marriage. It smarts. It really fucking does.

But that again gets to the crux of the matter: does this generation of feminists, gay rights advocates, and the like have the right to demand support from the African American community? Certainly, ya know, it would be real nice. It would be awfully reassuring to know that the years spent building bridges between civil rights advocates wouldn't evaporate the moment that particular demographic puts forth a stunning new landmark in political enfranchisement. One would really hope, for example, that a hypothetical first gay president wouldn't also turn out to be totally indifferent to racism, or worse yet, bring out legions of Aryan Nation warriors on election day to pass state-wide initiatives hostile toward minority rights; but one has no grounds to claim that for certain. We won't know that til we get there, if ever we do.

But thinking about what would be real nice and mediating the reality of what we can expect are two vastly divergent thought processes. At the moment, we are faced with the prospect of that slap-in-the-face reality that push to shove, the minority whose time it was to shine did not benevolently lend out a helping hand to others.

Here's the thing: I'm not sure this is a reasonable expectation. I'm not sure that, given the massive inequities rife on the American racial landscape today, it is ok to expect an activist commitment to equality toward people mostly not their own from a demographic still so deeply put down by the majority. Like I said: it would be nice, and hurt is justified - and not unexpected - that it did not come through. But I also think that leap between my civil rights and your civil rights - that linking of oppressions that was so hard fought and won between the waves of feminism - is a product of luxury. It's the province of those who have got theirs and willing now to part out spoonfuls to others. Do I wish we were one big happy egalitarian family fighting for the rights of all? Uh huh, yeah I do. But that isn't - and has never been - rhetoric coming from those scrapping around at the bottom. That's rhetoric coming from people like me: I got mine. I got mine enough that I can spend my weekends yammering away on this blog instead of working a second or third job. It's not really fair to ask people still suffering the unmitigated travesty of poverty and racism in America to come to the table for someone else's dinner party at which they will not be eating. (It's also not really fair - in fact, it is rather alarmingly racist - to expect some kind of solidarity from conservative of black churches, while excusing the mostly white Mormon church for being the fount of this Prop 8 nonsense because, well, Mormons always do this kind of thing. But that's another post entirely.)

None of this leaves aside an alarming truth though: homophobia is a vast, understated, and persistent problem in the African American community. Obama's campaign probably had no intention of making national news out of that factoid, but the tricks of historical timing - that Prop 8 was on the same ballot as the first African American candidate for presidency - leaves no room for doubt. And plenty of room for a good dose of shame.

Where does this leave us all now? For one, anyone with a stake in progressive politics who took home any kind of victory on November 4th: you - we, us - owe an enormous debt of honor to the gay community that fell on the sword that day in the name of every other liberal cause on the block. The gay community took it in the throat for the rest of us, and it is time to return the favor: by putting your money and your mouth where your politics are. Write letters, donate to hopeful political campaigns in the next round, make your voice heard loud and clear in favor of repealing the don't-ask-don't-tell policy and the court battle against Prop 8 - the two most visible actions on the block in the next few months. Fight for the rights of gay individuals and families in the arenas of employment equality, marriage, military discrimination, safety for gay youth in schools, the family courts. This isn't just about interlocking oppressions anymore; this is about help making right the enormous screws put into the gay community on the day that everyone else celebrated liberation and renewal.

Under this new administration, we have some opportunities that have been entirely impossible to even dream of under the Bush years. I say this not because I think Obama is a miracle worker, or even because he is on the right side of every issue (indeed, no: I'm about sixteen shades to the left of most of his campaign platform, and we'll see what comes out of his first term of the presidency). I say this because without the raining down of hatred and hawkishness so marked in the last eight years, there are a few things we don't have to worry about anymore. I'm no longer worried, for example, that we might attack Iran next week - or that the man at the helm is hell-bent on ending science as we know it. Out from under that pressure cooker - with several hellfire-crazy scenarios just off the table - now is the time to push for the issues that weren't even possible to consider just a few months back, and for the issues on which Obama still lies too far right of center. First up on my list: allowing gays to serve openly in the military; expanding health care coverage; renewing commitment to a clean environment; and ending that half-assed notion that we still need troop build-up in Afghanistan, even as we begin to envision a withdrawal from Iraq.

This is far from the time to rest on any kind of laurels; this is the opportunity of a lifetime to make this country something we can all live with. The pressure is off, and yet the pressure is on: we only have two years before interim elections may bend congress right again. Time to start striving toward our potential as a nation again, instead of merely fighting to tread water. Our liberation, all of it: yours, mine, ours. Fractured or together, it's our ride this time around - let's make it a good one.
|

To Counter The Force of Fundamentalist “christianity” In Our Politics, We Need To Use This. by Anthony McCarthy 

Today is the feast of Christ the King* in Catholic churches. While I’m not, by definition, a Christian, the gospel reading for the day has a lot to be said in its favor. It’s always puzzled me why this particular passage is passed over in addressing right-wing “christian” fundamentalists. It completely undermines their political and ethical position.

Here it is, from Matthew, 25:31-46

Jesus said, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, `Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, `Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' Then he will answer them, `Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Contained in this one passage is a straight forward condemnation of both the policy and practice of conservative “christians”, the ones who you’re about to hear froth on about the war on Christmas for the next month, the only ones who the word "Christian" is used to cover in the mass media.

You can look pretty long and hard at conservatives and you won’t find much that fulfills these requirements for avoiding eternal damnation. There is virtually not a single point of these requirements which are adequately fulfilled by the conservative’s program. The hungry, the sick, the ill clothed, the alien, the prisoner. There is no way to square conservatives actions on nutrition programs, universal healthcare, immigration and certainly not on prison policy. Conservatives consistently talk about and treat “the least of these”, no less than the people who Jesus claims as “members of my family”, of being part of his very being, as if they were human dross.

These conservative ‘christians’ are constantly presented, by themselves and the media, as being the most genuine and observant followers of this man, they claim he is, literally, God. They never tire of condemning other people to eternal damnation citing “Jesus Christ” as their authority. But in this one passage we’ve got absolute proof that they are lying. Eternal damnation, you’d think that if they really believed that their policies would avoid that possibility. And notice, not a single mention of abortion, gay sex, contraception of wealth redistribution as mortal sin.

Buckminster Fuller famously advised against fighting natural forces but advised using them was more practical and effective. It’s too bad that pride and antiquated conformity keep liberals and leftists from pointing out these things. Can’t understand why we shouldn’t. Like it or not, it makes no difference, Christianity is the equivalent of a natural force in our political life. We’re not under any constitutional prohibition from citing whatever furthers our purpose. Our making reference to this or any other helpful scripture is in no way a prohibited “religious test”. And even if it was, that clause in the Constitution doesn’t bind us, it binds the government in its official actions.
|

"Rats are more honest." by Anthony McCarthy 

Here’s a wonderful story about trained rats saving lives.

In Mozambique, special squads of raccoon-size rats are sniffing out lethal explosive devices buried across the countryside, remnants of the country's anticolonial and civil wars of the last century.

In neighboring Tanzania, teams of rats use their twitchy noses to detect TB bacteria in saliva samples from four clinics serving slum neighborhoods. So far this year, the 25 rats trained for the pilot medical project have identified 300 cases of early-stage TB - infections missed by lab technicians with their microscopes. If not for the rodents, many of these victims would have died and others would have spread the disease.

"It's fair, I think, to call these animals 'hero rats,' " said Bart Weetjens, the Belgian conceiver of both programs.

The rat squads, at first derided by some international aid officials as ridiculous, have won support from the World Bank and praise from the UN and land mine eradication groups. Now there are plans to deploy the creatures to Angola, Congo, Zambia, and other land mine-infested lands.

You might suspect that this is the kind of program that would have been held up to ridicule by the corporate media here, to supply it with cheap filler between celebrity scandal. Is it fair to wonder if, perhaps, these rats haven’t done more to save innocent people from land mines than many respected diplomats?* It might. And the story could provide an explaination.

For both TB and land mines, the rats are trained to respond to the sound of a clicker; when the rat makes the scratching motion that means it has detected an explosive or the odor of disease, the handler or trainer responds by snapping the clicker, which means a nut or fruit is on the way.

So why don't the animals just scratch every few minutes to win a treat?

"That would be human behavior," said Weetjens. "Rats are more honest."

* The United States, China, India and a number of other countries have still not signed onto the landmine ban. That is something that the Obama Administration should be lobbied to do.
|

Oh, So Now You Tell Me There Might Be No Black Holes? by Anthony McCarthy 

The scare story about the new Hadron Collider generating tiny black holes that might eventually grow and swallow the earth didn’t exactly keep me up nights. But they did provide some insomniac diversions. I’m at a time of life when I’d often rather have my atoms torn apart in a black hole then get by on three hours sleep again.

Most of my ruminations took the form of whether or not scientists who believed their making Earth eating black holes were a remote possibility might not think that their curiosity, or more likely, very temporary glory, wouldn’t be worth us all taking the risk. Last I heard the guy trying to sue to stop them hadn’t done his math correctly and his claims were unfounded, not that I’d know. But maybe there’s even less to worry about, at this point, than we might imagine.

This book review by George Scialabba has some thought provoking, if not mind blowing, ideas in it. Most interesting for stove side rumination on an icy cold night might be this one:

The first problem Einstein encountered was internal to his original theory of general relativity. The theory predicted that some stars would develop infinite gravity and density, collapsing inward and becoming "black holes" from which no information could escape. The freakish character of black holes vexed Einstein, who never accepted their existence. The next obstacle was the discovery that many galaxies within galactic clusters are moving at a speed that should lead them to break away from the cluster. But they don't. The only explanation compatible with constant gravitational attraction (which Newton and Einstein assumed) was the presence of a large amount of invisible, undetectable matter: "dark matter." Finally, 10 years ago, several astronomers claimed to have discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing rather than decreasing. The only explanation seemed to be a vast quantity of invisible, "dark" energy with negative pressure, which would counter the braking force of gravity. Together, dark matter and dark energy supposedly make up 96 percent of the universe. If they exist.

Physicists have reluctantly accepted these anomalies for the sake of preserving Einstein's venerable theory of gravity, with its assumption of constant gravitational attraction. But neither black holes nor dark matter has ever been detected. Moffat cuts the Gordian knot, proposing a Modified Gravity Theory, or MOG. He postulates a new "fifth force," carried by a new particle, the "phion." MOG explains the varying strength of gravitational attraction without any need for black holes or dark stars. It also undermines string theory, most physicists' current candidate for a Theory of Everything. Finally, it suggests that the universe did not begin with a Big Bang but may be "eternal" and "dynamically evolving."

It's a bold theory, and Moffat acknowledges that most physicists are skeptical. But data from the new Large Hadron Collider and ongoing galaxy surveys may soon settle the question. Stay tuned.

In my youth it used to be annoying how cosmologists would go from the big crunch to the infinite evaporation of the universe with such ease and assurance. Then the spectacle of them doing the ultimate back and forth turned fun. My friends and family, those mostly in the biological sciences, hold a grudge against the Lords of Creation and their big budgets, they still find this aggravating. Being just a failed piano player, I can sit back and enjoy the show. I sincerely hope that the data are provocative but inconclusive well into the future. I’m with Old Sneep in Robert McClosky’s book “Lentil”. Everyone needs taking down a peg or two, those highest up in the social scale most of all.
|

Saturday, November 22, 2008

But, Dear, The Boy Sucks Blood..... by Anthony McCarthy 

I know he seems very charming and you feel sorry for him because he seems so sad but I just can’t feel good about this relationship. He sucks blood, he feels an enormous urge to bite people in the neck and drink their blood while it’s still warm. Yes, yes, I know you say he’s got it under control but it’s only a matter of time before they figure out where the cities pets are going. Then what? He’ll go to court and you’ll get dragged in as a character witness. The neighbors will put two and two together then what will happen? You used to be such an animal lover. And does he really have that much will power? I know you say he’s got more will power than normal but don’t you remember that time you had him over and your little brother teased him about his crypt palor? I mean when he bared his teeth and his eyes turned red, do you want to risk that happening when it’s not just family? Now, that’s no way to talk about your brother, and considering your boyfriend people who live in glass houses.

I know you think you’re in love with him but you don’t have that much experience. What if he’s not as serious as you are? No. No. It doesn’t reassure me that he calls you “sweetheart”, I’ve seen how he looks when he says it. And you’re the one who wanted to try going vegetarian. You remember how long that lasted?

And what if he is serious? I mean when you’re older than fourteen. What if you get married? What about the children? You think your brother’s a pain in the neck but, believe me, there are worse. Yes, your cousin Howie is a good example of one but as far as I know he doesn’t suck blood. Yes, yes, I know you think I’m OC about that one but it really isn’t his most attractive feature. Come to think of it, you used to like a boy with a tan. I knew letting you stay after for that project was a mistake. You’d never have been there while night school was in session....

And what about as you get older. What about mid-life crisis. You remember your father. I mean, the boy’s got problems now that a broken collar bone and tattoo removal won’t cure. What if he goes off the deep end? You have no guarantee that he won’t have some kind of hormonal imbalance and start chasing after ..... And, come to think, how long does a vampire’s mid-life crisis last? You’re setting yourself up for an eternity of heartbreak. No, I think the best thing to do is to just cut it off. Oh, you’re just being overly dramatic, it’s not like you’re putting a knife in his heart. Besides, he’ll get over that. No, I’m putting my foot down. I don’t want you seeing him again. Bars on your window? Well, if that’s what it takes, though your father thought wire mesh would be more effective.

OK, that’s it. You’re grounded. What do you mean in more ways than I can imagine?

Update: Biting Vampires As Ideal boyfriends? Good grief.

The idea of the vampire as being sexually alluring is something that is clearly demented, no, make that perverted. It was bad enough when the colorless old man of Stoker’s Dracula turned into the young, black and white greaser of Bela Lugosi, then the technicolor dry look Frank Langella. The idea of a man slipping into a woman’s bed room at night and vampirizing her as romance might be less sick than the romanticizing rape only due to the fact that vampires don’t exist. At least I hope there aren’t kids trying out biting people in the neck as a lifestyle choice, now that Hollywood is presenting the blood sucker as a white bread teen idol. I just don’t get it. But then, I never got The Leader of the Pack either. I haven't done a study of it, but I'll bet that female vampires preying on males are not generally portrayed as sympathetic, romantic characters. They might be seductive but they the ones I recall are only the more evil for that.

The vampire as a metaphor for beleaguered minority group boyfriend is worse than inappropriate, it’s offensive. If they existed vampires would be the embodiment of all of the lies told about the dangers of the dangerous “other”*. If they existed, they would actually be cunning, dangerous, predatory killers, stealing not only the lives of their victims but their very souls, condemning to eternal damnation. The vampire isn’t just the boy from the wrong side of the tracks, though, as in the first paragraph, I’ve got a feeling a vampire would be seen as more socially acceptable, as long as they dressed well, could feign middle-class manners and practiced enhanced oral hygiene.

You would think that this style of vampire was everything a you wouldn’t want in a man. He’s undead, bites people in the neck, drinks their very life essence and enslaves them to a half-life, isn’t handy with tools and can’t be relied to come home at a reasonable hour. They aren’t good life-companion material. I know I wouldn’t put up with one.

The advent of AIDS made the issue of blood even more dangerous, a more twisted literary device. I don’t get its increased popularity in pop-fiction as it becomes a clearer danger. But, then, I’ve watched my friends die of AIDS related diseases.

You wonder how the Twilight series would do if instead of being a vampire the teenage heart throb merely picked peoples’ pockets or hacked their bank accounts instead of drank blood. I have every confidence that stealing peoples money is, actually, less socially acceptable than drinking their blood and stealing their soul. Would a teen thief be able to sustain a series of kiddies’ block busters or a movie? I mean as the main attraction instead of a cute side line.

It’s been my sad observation that there is no man so repulsive that they can’t find a woman, somewhere, who will waste her life for him. Our culture sets women up for that with the idea that they’ve got to have a man, or boy friend, that they’re nothing without one. Some women are lucky enough to have resisted that pervasive message but too many haven’t. Girls, I suspect, are more vulnerable to that pressure than adults. The anxiety of being a teenager makes every pressure explosive. I don’t think this is an innocuous trend in teen fiction, I think it’s symptomatic of the vampirism that women are subjected to in real life, and that’s no tall tale. There has to be something that explains how something so counter-intuitive is so pervasive in our far less than girl-friendly pop-culture.

* I’m not opposed to vampire stories on principle, I do actually have a favorite vampire story, “Blood Libel” by Leigh Ann Hussey about a Jewish vampire, helped by a wise Rabbi who finds a way for him to retain his humanity and his place in a community. It was a very delicate handling of a very charged libel of real anti-Semitism.
|

Friday, November 21, 2008

Another presidential race (by Suzie) 



           In a recent series, Echidne talked about women and religion. I want to use my church as an example of how sexism may remain, in even the most liberal settings.
          The Unitarians and Universalists merged in 1961. The UU Association (UUA) has had seven presidents, all male, even though women make up more than half of our members and ministers. We have no formal barriers to keep women out of the presidency. In fact, UUs are notoriously liberal, and we have long supported women’s rights. Susan B. Anthony was born a Quaker, but attended a Unitarian church for most of her adult life. In 1863, Olympia Brown became a Universalist minister, the first woman to be regularly ordained by any denomination.
         UUs don't always know our history. I once taught about Anthony in Sunday school (what we call “religious education”). The grade-school children knew and admired the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, but they had learned little or nothing about any feminist leaders, including Anthony. (I've touched on this issue before, and Anna Belle has written more extensively here.)
         Perhaps one reason women haven’t elected a woman is that many think it’s wrong to let gender influence them, as if living in this world didn't already influence who they consider competent and inspiring. (Can anyone think of an institution that has a majority of men but has never elected a male leader?)
         In a blog this January, DianaKay compared the Dem primary to the UUA election in 2001 in which members chose a black man, the Rev. Bill Sinkford, over a white woman, the Rev. Diane Miller. Similarly, DianaKay, who supported Sinkford, was confident that “smart women” would resist “gender loyalty” and vote for Obama.
         Many UUs were proud to elect their first African-American president. The United Church of Christ was the first major, predominatly white denomination to elect a black president in 1976. But some media, including this interview with Sinkford by Bill Maxwell, a well-known columnist who also is a UU, attributed that first to the UUA.
Sinkford: Certainly the press thought it was an important event. Papers from the New York Times right on down ran feature stories about that, and I think, pretty clearly, Unitarian Universalists thought it was important.
          I guarantee that electing a woman would not have gotten the same media attention. Like other institutions, UU churches seek good publicity, and we want growth. Some people think that having a black president helps attract people of color to our churches. In contrast, there is no “added value” in electing a female president because women are already in the majority. A female president might even deter some men who already think of church as female space.
Maxwell: Although the UUA had more ministers in the civil rights movement, including the march from Selma to Montgomery with Dr. Martin Luther King, why does the UUA have such a hard time attracting black members today?
Sinkford: That's probably the most commonly asked question I get as I travel extensively in the United States to our congregations. My standard response is that for a faith community that is still predominantly white, it is not spiritually grounded to go out and try to acquire a few more dark faces so that the white members of the congregation feel better about themselves.
          In 1968, the UUA committed a million dollars for reparations to African-Americans, but ended up paying only half of that, Sinkford said. He said he and others felt betrayed and left the church. Some churches also have a hard time recruiting black members because they moved into “lily-white suburbs,” he said. For a long time, intellect dominated UU churches, rather than the “heart,” he said, but that’s changing. I guess that presumes that whites are more likely to have higher education.
           There are other reasons why our churches are predominantly white. For many years, UU fellowships and churches offered a haven of integration. In the 1930s, for example, Unitarians and Universalists opposed white supremacists in the Tampa Bay area. In 1955, the Unitarian Fellowship of Tampa evolved out of an interracial Great Books Discussion Group started that year by Unitarians. As time passed, however, other denominations welcomed people of color, giving them more choices.
           Liberal whites sometimes forget that not all people of color are liberal in all of their views, as the recent votes on same-sex marriage illustrated. UU churches welcome gay people, as well as atheists, pagans and others who might trouble someone from a conservative Christian background.
           UU churches are committed to social justice, but not everyone includes gender. Look at this debate between the two candidates for UUA president, the Revs. Laurel Hallman and Peter Morales, in 2009.
Question 4: On the topic of anti-racism and anti-oppression:
What experiences have you had that help you deeply understand the mindset and values of another culture? Are there practical things you will do to help congregations take authentic steps of transformation?
          Mentioning “another culture” limits this discussion to ethnicity. Focusing on multiculturalism, with no talk of gender, tilts in favor of Morales, who said: “There is no substitute … for the experiential.” In other words, as a Latino, he has lived with oppression. Hallman, who’s a non-Hispanic white, can make no such claims as an “authentic insider.” But that doesn’t stop her from discussing efforts on her Web site on anti-racism, anti-oppression and multiculturalism, with no mention of sexism. On his Web site, Morales said:
We point with pride to our forebears who were in the vanguard in the struggle against slavery, rights for women and the civil rights movement. Today our compassion and love for justice lead us to confront the great moral issues of our time: racism, human rights, immigration, economic justice, rights for GLBTQ people, and preservation of life on our planet.”
         It looks like “rights for women” no longer makes the cut. Morales wants a “truth and reconciliation” process in which white congregants own up to their insensitivity. When will male congregants confess sins of sexism?
         Morales wrote: “Many minority ministers have had tragic experiences in our congregations.” Yes, some congregants (of different colors) are insensitive and ignorant about other cultures. But I’d be amazed if a UU committed a hate crime based on race or religion. Yet there are liberal men who have such twisted feelings about women that they brutalize them. I’ve written before about the UU member in a neighboring congregation who killed his two children, his ex-wife and her new partner. Shouldn’t we be taking “authentic steps of transformation” to stop domestic violence and other forms of abuse and discrimination among our members?
         At our General Assembly, UU Women & Religion decided to support Hallman for UUA president. The Rev. Shirley Ranck, co-convener of W&R, posted:
For me as a woman G.A. was somewhat disappointing. Although I was pleased to see that there were many presentations being made by women on all kinds of topics, I was sad to see that there was almost no mention of women's concerns or issues of particular interest to women in any presentations by women or men. One particularly grievous example was a panel on international UU theology. A man introduced the program and every one of the six presenters from countries around the world was male. Not one of them ever mentioned women at all.
I did enjoy talking with the few people who managed to find our W&R booth, but I couldn't help but wonder how the placement of particular booths is decided. I am also wondering if our work on behalf of women, like the work of the 19th century Unitarian and Universalist feminists will be forgotten until some new generation of women in the future is motivated to dig our stories out of some obscure archives. What is it that we need to do, my sisters, to keep women from once again being overlooked and undervalued?
----------
          Considering what I've written, why do I go to a UU church? I have great friends there, I need a community, and where I live, I haven't found any better place.
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 


I don't know about you, but this may be the Funniest Cat Video I'll Ever See.
|

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Nasty Post III 



This is a part of a series on things that piss me off but which don't fall under any other suitable title in my internal filing systems, the kind of things which make my blood pressure rise momentarily but which are usually not worth taking a whole discussion thread into a different direction.

Right now I'm annoyed by a certain kind of quantity-and-quality blindness of so many commenters on political blogs. To give you an example (biased towards my own concerns, natch), consider this exchange that I have had many times:

First I say that many in the media treated Hillary Clinton with sexist arguments when she ran in the presidential primaries and I give examples of those arguments and their frequency. Second, I'm told that this is nothing new as conservatives used to write about John Edwards as the Breck boy and as the guy with the pricey haircuts. The conclusion to be drawn: There is no special sexism that Hillary Clinton was exposed to. All political candidates are called monsters and castrating bitches and so on, I guess.

There are two errors in that counterargument; one of quantity and one of quality. The former has to do with just the number of sexist references that female politicians (such as Hillary Clinton) are exposed to. They are many, many times more common than sexist references aimed at male politicians in the past, and to pretend that the quantitative difference doesn't exist leads to the wrong conclusion.

The latter error has to do with equating two very different types of sexist slurs. Men like John Edwards or Barack Obama (remember Obambi?) are accused of acting like girls by their opponents. Women like Hillary Clinton are also accused of acting like girls by their opponents (she cried! it worked!), but they are also accused of transcending all gender borders and of entering some sort of a world where they transform into monsters, Ice Queens and bitches from hell. The language in the latter case is much stronger, more primal and vicious and the basis for gender transgressions almost infinite. Men can be ridiculed by comparing them to women. Women can be ridiculed as women, too, but they can also be ridiculed by accusing them of being pseudo-men or of something subhuman altogether.

I recommend this little experiment: Google various combinations of 'ambition' and 'politician' and note the proportion of the hits you get which apply to female politicians. Then remember that there aren't that many female politicians to begin with. This was something I noticed said about both Hillary Clinton and to Sarah Palin: that they are driven by nothing but naked ambition. What are male politicians driven by, I wonder? Altruism and the desire to find enlightenment?

Even though my examples apply to one particular topic, the tendency to assume that an assertion about general tendencies can be defeated by one counterexample is more common than that. All such a counterexample proves (assuming it's a real one) is that the general tendency is not a total one.

|

The Center Right America? 



You may have read this article a few weeks ago. It argues that despite the 2008 presidential election results America is at core a conservative country rather than a liberal country. Then others responded to the initial article and the game was on.

I never got to writing on the topic, what with all those other attractive topics out there, but I still have some opinions on it. These are opinions, mind you, not evidence or facts, though they don't conflict with the evidence that I have seen. In any case, to write about the evidence is kinda boring, because I'd have to start by discussing what people might mean with the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' and how we can measure something called 'center-right' and how fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are treated in those definitions and so on. Are you not glad you avoided that?

So onwards and upwards to my opinions. One of my most striking first impressions about this country (right after the size of the cars on the roads) was the very open distrust and dislike of the government. All sorts of people expressed it to me, not just fiscal conservatives.

This hatred of the government wasn't similar to the complaints and criticisms I had heard in Europe; it was a deeper reaction, perhaps something passed on by earlier generations, something which saw the government as a breathing and scheming creature, alive and desiring our hearts' blood. People gathered together in a market place were good, people gathered together to govern were bad.

I recall filing this hatred of the ruling classes under the consequences of the religious persecution many early immigrants from Europe had experienced and the way such memories are passed on through generations. But this may be only partially correct. The distrust of the government has now entered into the general American mythology, and that distrust is both stronger than in other countries I know about and slightly different in quality. Perhaps more primal.

At the same time, Americans are not especially conservative concerning government policies, rather the reverse. Or at least the majority of responses in polls about how much money to spend on public education and whether we should have a single-payer health care system can be quite leftish if the questions are framed a certain way. If the questions are framed in a different way, well, we get support for the idea that this country is at heart conservative.

Note that the discussion on this fascinating topic rarely distinguishes between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism, even though the two are not always twinned with each other. It would be quite possible for Americans to be, on average, social conservatives and fiscal liberals or vice versa. Given the religious right in this country, it's no wonder that Americans, on average, express less egalitarian gender views than people in other countries of the same economic type.

All that sounds like waffling, and it is. But the question about the inherent nature of Americans is an impossible one to answer in some quick-and-facile way. It also doesn't pay enough attention to the way public opinion is molded by the media and the propaganda people and it doesn't pay enough attention to the way the system of government in this country is an inherently foot-dragging one. It's hard to make change happen.

At the same time, the United States is really a collection of smaller countries and those countries tend to have very different levels of conservatism. Louisiana is not Massachusetts, for example.

If I had to express a decisive opinion on this overall question I'd probably start with pointing out that Obama really should have won by gigantic margins, given the actual history of George Bush's reign and the levels of damage the Republican ideology has caused this country and the world, from unnecessary wars to economic catastrophe. That the margins were not that gigantic is a little frightening. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the average American or even the average voter is conservative when it comes to the policies they'd like to see executed. I'd look for that conservative effect in the institutions of this country, in the way money plays a big role in who actually has the freedom to be heard in politics and in the way the media tends corporate in its coverage choices.

|

What's The Bush Administration Up To, These Final Days? 



Making endangered animals more endangered:

For more than 30 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service have reviewed any federal plans that could potentially protect endangered animals or plants. Under the administration's proposed rule, these independent scientific reviews would no longer be required if the agency in question determined that its activities would not hurt the imperiled species.

It's a twofer, angering environmentalists and also showing a nice anti-science side.

|

Knitting Little Booties First 



Amanda (of Pandagon) quipped that might become one of the requirements for getting an abortion in the state of Texas:

The ultrasound proposal, by Sen. Dan Patrick , R-Houston and state Rep. Frank Corte Jr., R-San Antonio, would require women who seek an abortion to first have an ultrasound — although they would not be required to view the image — and to listen to the fetal heartbeat.

"Once an ultrasound is performed, and a woman sees it, she may decide to change her mind and not have the procedure," Patrick said, "and that's a wonderful thing, if that woman decides to keep that baby or put it up for adoption."

A similar proposal passed the Senate last year but stalled in the House.

With Democrats gaining more seats in the House, the ultrasound bill's chances might be even worse this time, said Sherri Greenberg , a fellow at the Center for Politics and Governance at the LBJ School of Public Affairs.

Amanda also pointed out that the ultrasound proposal assumes that most pregnant women are too stupid to realize that pregnancy means an embryo or a fetus inside that uterus thingy.

The proposal is unlikely to pass which is a good thing. Should we then ignore such proposals? I don't think so. They need to be dragged into daylight so that we are aware of all that's brewing in those wingnut political kitchens.

|

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

The Well Is Dry 



Tonight, the well being the source of my inspirations. I wanted to write about the frogs and toads and centipedes at the bottom of the well, how their silvery sharpness throws back the blind eye of the full moon, how very much I want to catch one of them and make it sing its song and how I cannot because no ladder reaches that bottom and in any case the well is dry.

The well is dry which means that my writing is parched and creaky and no topic pokes me in my tired froggy eyes and the moon isn't full or even gibbous (what an awful word, sounding like something in the slobbery mouth of a gibbon). Now write all that again without adjectives.

Can you tell that I have been reading books of advice for aspiring writers? Whatever their benefit to others, I think that I should stay the hell away from them. The ones that are most dangerous to me are those which tell us how to fish for the perfect word, the true sentence, the noblest paragraph. Those books make me despair.

|

File Under: Lifestyle, Women 



That's where I found this little piece of news in the fairly lefty U.K. newspaper The Guardian:

A disturbing survey published by the White Ribbon Foundation in Australia shows that one third of boys believe "it's not a big deal to hit a girl", one in seven thinks "it's OK to make a girl have sex with you if she was flirting" - and one in seven girls has experienced sexual assault or rape.

This echoes a Sheffield University study of 35 teens, in which boys freely admitted trying to get girls drunk to have sex with them. The study's author concluded that sex education needs to start strengthening girls' self-esteem and encouraging male empathy. I suspect that tackling the rape culture is going to necessitate much more radical measures too, including addressing the rise of violent pornography, sexist advertising, lap dancing clubs, stag party sex tourism ...

Buckle up everyone - it's a long road ahead.

I have never quoted the whole piece from some other source before. It seems warranted in this particular case, both because of the brevity of the piece and the treatment of the topic and that last odd sentence about a long road ahead. Not to mention the fact that findings about how many boys think rape is OK are filed under lifestyle/women.

It's as if the author of the piece knew that she was fighting a losing battle over the sexual objectification of young girls and that the only safe place to insert anything about this topic was on what used to be called the women's page. After all, who else would be interested in what teenage boys think about rape? Surely not their fathers, for instance.

|

Angels Singing 



Or 'castratos in the eunuch choir', as Chris Matthews once described the men who supported Hillary Clinton. Today's New York Post has a piece on his fear of Hillary Clinton. It's a silly piece, including some long-distance diagnosing, but almost everything Chris Matthews says about women is even sillier. So here's how one clinical psychologist diagnoses Chris Matthews:

"Matthews is extremely threatened by Hillary Clinton and powerful women in general. He is not gay, but the guy is not interested in women, they don't excite him or send tingles up his leg.

Do you know what? I'm utterly uninterested in the possible motivations of Tweety's misogyny. I just want him to stop expressing it on my television screen, all the time pretending that it's serious political analysis.

|

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

I Wonder 



What the Bush administration is doing during these last days of its life? Might be worth a glance or two, especially with regard to all those political appointees that were installed in the last eight years:

Just weeks before leaving office, the Interior Department's top lawyer has shifted half a dozen key deputies -- including two former political appointees who have been involved in controversial environmental decisions -- into senior civil service posts.

The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions, called "burrowing" by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs.

Similar efforts are taking place at other agencies. Two political hires at the Labor Department have already secured career posts there, and one at the Department of Housing and Urban Development is trying to make the switch.

Burrowing, it's called...

|

This Is Most Hilarious 



More on poking Joe Lieberman with a loving Q-tip as a symbol of bringing the country together:

Anger toward Lieberman seems to have softened since Election Day, and Democrats didn't want to drive him from the Democratic caucus by taking away his chairmanship and send the wrong signals as Obama takes office on a pledge to unite the country. Lieberman had indicated it would be unacceptable for him to lose his chairmanship.

Uniting the country does not mean rewarding those who have acted like vindictive children, who have stuck their tongue out while giving speeches on behalf of the Other Party. You treat childish behaviors with a time-out.

I guess that last sentence about Lieberman finding the loss of his chairmanship 'unacceptable' means that he's going to go all Republican if he is denied his throne. Sigh. So why not say that?

|

Elections Have Consequences 



Remember how George Bush told that to us after one of his past election victories? Elections Have Consequences.

Well, elections don't have consequences for Joe Lieberman, the Senator with the letter I after his name:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) easily won a vote to remain chairman of a key committee today and will stay in the Democratic caucus despite his high-profile criticism of President-elect Barack Obama and his support of Sen. John McCain during the presidential campaign.

I myself think that Joe acted like a traitor to his old party, but Harry Reid disagrees:

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said that "Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. He's part of this caucus."

If the past Republican era was one where the Democrats came to face the Republicans' guns with old and rusty swords, the new Democratic era appears to be one where the main Democratic weapons are Q-tips.

|

Monday, November 17, 2008

Gay And Secular Fascism! 



This is quite hilarious:





So the hordes of darkness want to impose their values on all right-thinking religous people? Like the value of letting those hordes of darkness get married? How is that imposing on some totally separate people?

In Newt Gingrich's world nothing distinguishes "you telling me how I should live" from "me telling you that you shouldn't determine how I live". They are symmetrical values. And anyone telling him that he shouldn't butt into other people's private lives is a fascist.

Of course Newt Gingrich preaching people on morals is always good for laughs.

|

A Short Post On The Role of Government in Recessions 



Short, sweet and Keynesian: Recessions are times of economic shrinkage, of drawing back, of waiting to spend money, of deciding not to spend it. The more consumers do exactly that, the more firms are going to find their sales dropping, their profits evaporating and their employees excess baggage that should be unloaded. Add to that the current financial situation of local and state governments: Their tax revenues are down and so they are cutting back on spending, laying off workers and so on.

That exacerbates the spiral of shrinkages. As John Maynard Keynes pointed out, the government could work to counteract the business cycles, not to exacerbate them. This means that recessions are not the time for government belt-tightening, but the time for governments to actually spend more by taking out loans (if possible). The time to repay the loans is during the upswings of the business cycle. That would mean taxing people more then.

Why this doesn't work in practice is because voters will vote the high-taxing politicians out of office during booms. In a sense it's our own immaturity that is the biggest problem.

|

Scratching the Itch 



Scott reacts to E.J. Dionne's piece about how to make pro-choice policies more palatable to anti-choice people:

I certainly respect E.J. Dionne far more than I do Will Saletan. But it must be said that his new column has a pretty strong whiff of the "originating policies pro-choicers have been advocating for many decades" routine that Saletan has patented. Apparently, the solution to ending the conflict over abortion includes "contraception programs, even if these are a sticking point for some social conservatives, along with 'programs that are going to encourage women to bring their children to term.' Among them: expanded health coverage for women and children, more child care, adoption help, and income support for the working poor." Since pro-choice liberals have pretty much always supported these policies and they don't seem to stop the anti-choice minority from supporting criminalization (as well as opposing most or all of these programs, almost as if reducing abortion rates isn't a terribly important goal for American "pro-lifers"), it's not clear what's actually supposed to change about the abortion politics here.

Scott later makes an important observation:

But the real problem with Dionne's argument is his apparent belief that enacting this (as stated) worthwhile program would somehow "make cultural warfare a quaint relic of the past." This won't happen, simply because anti-abortion politics tends to be bundled up with an array of other reactionary attitudes about women and sexuality that undercut support for other policies that will reduce abortion rates

Now to the gross title of this post: "Scratching the itch" is how some people describe having sex. It also explains how I feel right now: I have an itch, caused by reading guys discuss abortion policies with great confidence (including what to offer pregnant women so that they'd give birth rather than have abortions), an itch that I need to scratch right now.

But of course guys can write about these questions, of course. And Scott, in particular, is good people. Yet I still itch. This particular topic often has that effect on me, because while abstinence policies, say, are always presented as gender-neutral, they never are so in practice. It's the Purity Balls we get, all aimed at girls, but the boys still seem to come across with the idea that a Real Man at least tries to get into her panties, just now not with condoms at hand.

Perhaps that would be something that the guys could write about a little more: How to get young men to practice conscientious contraception.

|

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Gender & hate crimes (by Suzie) 



         An Associated Press story says Obama’s election has led to an increase in race-based hate crimes. From a feminist perspective, I’d like to suggest two things:
         1. When we talk about violence, we need to stop disappearing gender. Society needs to continue to question why men are more likely to use violence, whatever the issue.
         2. We need to remember that violence against women because of their gender often does not get reported as a hate crime. For example, the AP story quotes an expert at the Southern Poverty Law Center, but as far as I can tell, the law center still does not track crimes based on gender. Its programs, including the Teaching Tolerance curriculum, center on race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation.
        People at the Reclusive Leftist site can wonder if anger at Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin has morphed into more violence against women, but I don't know of anyone tracking that, not the way the Southern Poverty Law Center counts other hate crimes.
        Fifteen years ago, I asked Richard Cohen, then the legal director for the law center, why it didn’t track crimes committed because of gender. He told me:
        “In some ways, the problem of violence against women is so pervasive that it’s in kind of a different category altogether.” He said men’s anger toward women might be a “much more deep-seated psychological thing than racism.”
        You would think that pervasiveness and deep roots would be an argument for inclusion, not exclusion.
        If feminism must fight all oppressions, as third-wave feminists believe, then we need to continue to ask groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center to include gender. If it doesn't have the resources, perhaps it could partner with a feminist nonprofit. That way, we could divide up the work, instead of saying feminists must do everything or nothing.
|

Writing As Carpentry 



I've recently read the blogs of several writers, mainly out of curiosity, to see what writers that I like might be saying when they are not writing books. On the whole the experience has been disappointing. Most of those blogs talk about the carpentry of writing: how to condense 250 000 pages into some acceptable number, how to introduce a second voice, how to figure out the best opening chapter. I call this carpentry, because a reader is as interested in that as a fan of beautiful furniture might be about the precise details of its creation.

It could be that I'm the only reader who is not into all that. Neither am I especially excited about the other topics that often appear on those blogs: marketing of the books and the sniffles and coughs and aches of everyday living and where to go to get your book signed by the author.

All this is part of the new marketing trend in books: the writers must now do almost all the PR for their books, traveling the country on book-signing tours, appearing on television and radio nonstop and so on. It could be that this has always been the case, but somehow I think not. What I do think is that this is not the way we should be going, because being a good writer is in no way correlated with being a good marketer or a good speaker or a good media person.

That may be what is behind the author blogs and author websites and the whole idea that somehow the readers are not only interested in but have the right to know about how a particular writer saws the planks and creates the joins in the book: The Author As The Publishing Firm.

|

Saturday, November 15, 2008

A Quiet Kid Observed At A Distance by Anthony McCarthy 

September, on the fresh playground looking at the weeds, till those are ground underfoot, then just walking around, master of camouflage, unseen, standing beside their body.

Then on the cold, bright October, in the smoky, low, angled morning sunlight, brisk in the morning wind, a quickened face sparked by fall.

Grey afternoons as the dark clouds pass by, smoke in the papery sky, walking on the sidewalks, blown with clean air. Contained, could be thinking of anything. You easily imagine it’s something good. Always alone. Confidence to move in the town based in their experience that they are invisible.

How many late afternoons sitting in the dry office, waiting for a ride. So familiar the old oak office chairs aren’t less remarkable with this kid sitting in one, doing homework again. Some times while mid-problem, with pencil in hand, looking at the page to balance the equation, as if time rests for the consideration, then checks the work with quick confidence. Goes on to the next one. Office brat, though not a brat. Liked well enough. Once in a while someone notices and smiles at the serious face.

Home, there’s an older one to live up to, they seem to like each other. A good kid, a loner you worry about from time to time. But who you expect will turn out all right. You hope so.

Update: Two Answers

You’re right, I didn’t specify the kid’s gender on purpose.

Yes, the original was about a real person, this is about many others.
|

Working Conditions (by Phila) 

There was a bit of debate here, a few weeks back, over the amount of support (if any) that progressives and feminists should give to the porn industry. For the record, I argued that at least some types of porn should be viewed (and regulated) as a manufactured product rather than an act of self-expression; and that the idea of "consent" to certain acts is based on an untenably idealized (and, I'd argue, inherently capitalist) notion of free will and rational choice that ignores virtually everything we've learned about human psychology, sexuality, and gender over the last century.

I also made the point that there's a difference between paying people to simulate degrading or violent acts on film, and paying people to perform them, and that the latter transaction can't necessarily be treated as nothing more than a First Amendment issue.

In other words, the violent porn industry is one to which I'm fairly hostile, and the standard liberal boilerplate that sanctifies the rights of porn producers to their profit margin strikes me as pre-critical (when it's not striking me as childish and deluded).

Which is why I'm very sympathetic to, but ultimately unconvinced by, this argument from sex worker Audacia Ray:
When I present the idea that its not the aggressive anal/choking/cum splattering that makes porn unethical or unfeminist, but the conditions under which the performers are doing said acts, people say...‘Its impossible to know what the working conditions are.’ It isn’t impossible....Just as people research textile factory conditions and then put pressure on corporations—-the same could happen with porn.
One difference, it seems to me, is that there's a basic need for textiles, and the role of textiles in society is essentially positive. While I'd never hold utility up as the standard to which artists or even sex workers must adhere, I do think it's worthwhile to make that simple distinction: no one needs to see someone else eat shit, and the fact that one can make money by producing this imagery says something interesting about our culture (as surely as, say, Hummers or foreign-made patriotic magnets do).

As I've argued elsewhere, money warps our sense of options the way gravity warps space-time. Things being as they are, the fact that people might someday be degraded in improved working conditions isn't comforting; we still have to face the the central issue that for many people -- and women too, of course -- the fact of financial duress (to say nothing of misogyny) comes before the decision to be choked or pissed on or smeared with shit. What Audacia Ray is recommending reminds me a little of California's Proposition 2, which will improve conditions for animals in factory farms: it's definitely more humane, and it's certainly worth supporting, but in the end it does nothing to change the basic relationship between predator and prey, which remains almost too obvious to notice.

I'm strongly resistant to what I see as the paternalism of telling people what's best for them, sexually, not least because it often ends up pathologizing or infantilizing women in the name of protecting them. At the same time, the point that I think Audacia Ray misses is that money is coercion. Which is a strange point to miss; that money is power, and that everyone has a price, are central narratives of our popular culture. And yet, the financial power it takes to produce and distribute violent porn is usually portrayed neutrally by its apologists, as though it were some widget-based example out of an Econ 101 textbook: there's an offer, acceptance, and consideration, so everything's fine.

Virtually anyone on the left can see through this argument instantly when someone like Tom DeLay uses the ideal of economic empowerment to defend paying a woman in Saipan a dollar a day to assemble some sort of consumer gadget; even the woman's heartfelt assurance that she's just grateful to be working will not necessarily convince us that she's there of her own free will. But sex is different, apparently; in this case, it's fine to exalt the form of liberation over its content. Sexual empowerment is simply a matter of doing whatever you want, sexually; why you want it, and who profits most from that desire -- financially and socially -- are questions we seem to be learning not to ask.
|

Birth and death (by Suzie) 



        I turn 50 today, and it feels like a personal accomplishment.
        By now, my friends have learned that you don’t give black-bordered birthday cards that make fun of aging to someone with incurable cancer. (I mention cancer, not to win sympathy, but to make visible the lives of people like me. It’s a part of the disability-rights movement.)
        Anyway, I’m in remission, happily munching on the popcorn covered in toffee and dark chocolate that my sister sent me. (It’s what’s for dinner.) I don’t need anything else, but if you’re so inclined, here’s what I’d like:
        Please tell someone that support exists for people with rare cancers. I don’t know how you’ll work this into a conversation, but I trust your ingenuity.
        Pink was everywhere last month for National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. For the record, I oppose breast cancer. But I bet most people have heard about breast cancer by now, and they know that organizations exist to fight the disease and help the patients. On the other hand, even some sarcoma doctors don’t know that nonprofits exist to help sarcoma patients. The other day, a woman found me by “Googling, somewhat pathetically and furtively, ‘Leiomyosarcoma hope.’ ”
        People with rare cancers often can’t meet in person for support groups, but we can connect by telephone and/or email. The Sarcoma Alliance has a peer-to-peer program to make these connections, as does the M.D. Anderson Network and other nonprofits.
        There’s a scientific explanation why some of us live longer than others. In cases where we don’t have answers, it’s tempting to suggest that people survive because they fight harder or they have a positive attitude or they have a reason to live. Avoid that temptation. As a volunteer, I’ve seen real fighters who kept positive and did much for others die. This week, it was my friend Suzanne Kurtz, who founded Leiomyosarcoma Direct Research. She celebrated her 60th birthday and then declined into death.
        For whatever reason I’m still here, I may as well enjoy the chocolatey popcorn.
--------------
       ETA: This story explains what I was doing in Ecuador last week. I know the father of a child who died of sarcoma, and he started a foundation to help kids with cancer in Ecuador. 
|

Eggz Over Eazy 



It's never a good idea to write about things which have affected the author very, very intimately. Trying to see all parts of the question is hard enough when this is not the starting-point. For instance, this piece about the "global fertility crisis" is not terribly evidence-based, and the reason may well be that the author herself was sterile by age 32. The final sentences in the article are, in fact, the thesis of the article:

But after a Ph.D., a law degree, and a year on Wall Street to pay off student loans, I was already 32, and sterile. I have begun telling the young professional women who seek my advice not to follow my example too exactly.

What's tricky about this thesis as the framing of the "global infertility crisis" is of course that very, very few women get a doctorate and a law degree in their twenties. Indeed, very few women fall into that career group in the first place, the one that the conservative anti-feminists dig out when they complain about (white) dearth of babies: Those uppity women should not go to school. They should stay at home and have more (white) babies.

And of course most men or women are not infertile for age-related reasons at age 32. But if you start writing about the "global infertility crisis" from the angle of the quite small group of "highly educated" women delaying their childbearing too long, well, you are going to end up with a biased piece.

There's another bias in the piece: Note that all the close-and-personal interviews are with women (men don't care about infertility?) and that the expert quoted is a man. But in fact something like forty percent of the infertility found in couples who try to conceive is caused by the man, not by the woman! Men's fertility drops with age, too!

I have never read one of these pieces where that fact is made completely clear. It's as if women are a separate species from men, solely responsible for procreation, and it's also as if the society cannot change at all to allow these women both to go to school and to have children. The society is arranged for the male career pattern but that, too, goes unnoticed.

Instead, we get these kinds of red-warning-flag articles. I fully understand the reason for them. But I'd love to read a more balanced article on these questions, one which actually notes how women are not the sole problem in this world.

|

Friday, November 14, 2008

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 



       No cute photo, sorry. Just a parable.
       I love cats, but I’m allergic to them. In the past, I’ve fed cats only to end up owning them, to the extent that anyone ever owns a cat.
       In recent months, people in my section of our humongo apartment complex, including me, have been feeding a very big striped cat. (If I name him, if I acknowledge that the woman next-door calls him “Ringo,” then I’m doomed.)
       The sight of the VBSC overwhelms my smaller Chihuahua, who wags her tail furiously while licking the cat's face. She play bows, and the VBSC rubs against her. They communicate cross-culturally.
       (Her next favorite is a male Chihuahua who spends his days on a balcony. I call him Romeo. My Chi whines at him, and he sticks his head through the bars and whines at her, and then I think he licks himself, but perhaps that's TMI.)
        I put up signs, hoping someone would adopt the VBSC. Taking him to a shelter would mean death because our county has too many adoptable cats already, and he can’t compete with a cute kitten or a cat that’s OK living indoors. I could have gotten him fixed for the lower price offered for feral cats, but I would have had to bring him in early, and the VBSC doesn’t have a reliable schedule. (This reminds me of writing about the homeless mentally ill who would be given appointments to return in two weeks at 3 p.m., or some such.)
       I worked out a deal with a friend whose daughter runs a rescue: If I could capture the VBSC and bring him to her house, she’d take the cat to her daughter, who would shelter him long enough for him to get fixed, get tested for diseases and get shots. Then we’d return him to the wilds of my apartment complex.
       Yesterday, I stuffed him into a pet carrier and took off in my car, with him wailing in despair, and me feeling like a traitor, wondering about humans imposing our will on animals, etc. Then he let go of a gallon of urine. While waiting to hear how he's faired, I’ve tried Nature’s Miracle on my cloth car seat, and then water and vinegar. Next up will be zeolite.
       If you have not experienced it, I can’t tell you how bad male cat urine smells. After driving around a while, however, I found that I was getting used to the odor. And it got me thinking how we tolerate stuff in our lives. We try to get rid of it, of course, but after a while, we adjust, and we need someone else to get in the car and say, “OMFG, this car stinks! How can you stand it!?”
       Apply this to politics as you see fit.
|

Affirmative action and the election (by Suzie) 



           In the general election, voters in Nebraska approved a constitutional amendment that bars public agencies from giving preferential treatment based on gender, race or ethnicity. (See this article for possible repercussions.) Colorado barely defeated a similar initiative.
           I favor affirmative action in general. But I think it’s a lost cause if liberals treat it like a dirty word. I wrote about this before, noting how Obama equated it with the conservative idea of “giving preference to minorities who are less qualified.”
           This Atlantic article suggests Obama’s election was
a stunning triumph for the early 1960s notion of colorblindness. Children’s Defense Fund president Marian Wright Edelman wrote in Politico that “… my fellow Americans are willing to do what Dr. King envisioned: vote for a President based on the content of his character rather than the color of his skin.” Edelman’s language is consistent with Obama’s strikingly colorblind campaign.
         Obama didn’t need to emphasize his race; so many others did it for him, with accusations of racism and counter-accusations of race-baiting, plus discussions about the importance of electing our first black president. Crowds chanting “race doesn’t matter” did not indicate colorblindness. Colorblindness will occur when people truly stop noticing race.
         In regard to college admissions, the Atlantic article suggests Obama may favor preferences based on income and wealth, rather than race. It makes the case that such programs could help blacks and Hispanics just as much as ones based on race and ethnicity.
          Like many discussions of affirmative action, the article doesn’t mention gender, perhaps because colleges admit plenty of women these days. But gender is still relevant in other areas, such as male-dominated fields. When debating affirmative action, we need to remind people that gender disparities may not occur for the same reasons or in the same way as disparities by race, color and ethnicity.
          ETA: We got started on this topic early. For more, go back to the comments on this thread.
|

Thursday, November 13, 2008

On Voices 



You know that grating twang Sarah Palin has? And how annoyingly Hillary Clinton speaks? From now on I'm gonna loudly (yeah, I know) criticize any politician's voice if it doesn't match this wonderful example about basso profundo, Maxim Mikhaylov (Mikhailov):





An explanatory note: This may be funny only to those who share my weird sense of humor. But I still think it would be great if all politicians were forced to opera sing their speeches in Congress.

|

Floating In Weirdness 



This is from a recent O'Reilly Factor:

Summary: On The O'Reilly Factor, Dennis Miller stated of Gov. Sarah Palin: "[M]ostly women on the left hate her, because to me, from outside in, it appears that she has a great sex life." He continued, "I think she has non-neurotic sex with that Todd Palin guy. I think most of the women on the Upper East Side, their husbands haven't been aroused since Mailer signed copy of The Executioner's Song at Rizzoli's back in the early '70s."

I'm floating on this sea made out of pink styrofoam balls and looking at the cardboard sky above. Which is shorthand for being in another reality, a reality where Dennis Miller can state three unsupported assertions in a row (it is mostly women on the left who hate Sarah Palin, the Palins have non-neurotic sex and women of the Upper East Side don't have any sex) and that's perfectly good in a public debate.

Me, I think that Dennis Miller might be a podperson from the planet of Cockheads, that his idea of sex consists of picking a female chicken leg for his dinner and that the last time he ejaculated was when Bush invaded Iraq. Let's discuss those assertions, too, eh?

Note how carefully I didn't add any subtle references to Mailer's Executioner's Song. in my little comparison paragraph.

And yeah, bashing lefty women is perfectly fine with O'Reilly, because he can always pretend that Miller is just a little naughty and that he should have warned all the viewers beforehand that there's going to be just a small interval of misogyny (the problem with those women is that they don't get fucked enough but that's because they are monsters) but of course we can all laugh our way through it.

|

Statins. The New Wonder Drugs. 



A recent study finds that statins (cholesterol-lowering drugs) can affect the likelihood of heart attacks and strokes even in individuals whose cholesterol levels were normal. The reason may have something to do with the role inflammation plays in affecting those risks. Statins appear to work on inflammations, too.

The study opens up some very important questions: First, note that it was funded by a company which manufactures the statin used in the study, Crestor:

Although there has been concern about the safety of Crestor, the researchers found no signs of significant risks. The study was funded by AstraZeneca, which makes Crestor, but the company had no influence over the analysis, Ridker said. He and his hospital receive royalties from the high-sensitivity CRP, or HSCRP, test, but other researchers said that was no reason to doubt the findings.

I don't like the principle of drug manufacturers paying for the studies which evaluate how good their drugs are, never mind how carefully such studies are done. What happens to those studies which find the drugs to be ineffective? Are they published with the same alacrity? Perhaps. But note that having drug firms pay for studies means that the study must pose questions about specific drugs rather than about specific diseases. For instance, perhaps there are other ways to lower inflammation in the body (aspirin?) than statins, and perhaps those other ways might have fewer side-effects and/or be cheaper.

Second, note the ethical problems that findings like this pose for insurance providers: Should statins now be covered even for individuals with normal cholesterol levels? Some views on that:

Some skeptics, however, argued that the actual risk reduction for an individual would be very small, given the relatively low risk for most middle-age people, so the benefits easily could be outweighed by the costs of thousands more people taking tests, drugs and being monitored by doctors.

"We're already struggling to provide health services for the 46 million Americans who don't have health insurance in the United States," said John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School. "This is going to drain away a lot of money from the system for little or no benefit. We know that there are lifestyle interventions that are effective."

Ridker and others, however, said that the benefit was clear.

"We could prevent a lot of heart attacks, stroke, bypass surgeries, angioplasties, and save a lot of lives," Ridker said. "To me, that's a good thing."

There are formal ways of answering the question of what a health care system should pay for and why, and those ways consist of various types of cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness analyses. The former try to compare the benefits from a treatment to its costs, often failing, because it's hard to measure the benefits (reduced morbidity or mortality, reduced pain and suffering) in the same units as the costs (which are mostly in dollar terms).

The latter gets around this problem by looking at the costs per some measure of outcomes (say, lives saved or life-years gained). For example, we might compare the costs of lifestyle modification to the costs of taking statins, both standardized per life-years saved or some other suitable measure of outcome. I'd like to see a study do that, perhaps supplemented with other drug treatments that might work. But a pharmaceutical company is unlikely to fund such a study.

Prevention is a weird medical field, by the way, partly, because many of us have an almost religious affection towards it and partly because many forms of primary or secondary prevention have been eagerly adopted before studies have shown them to be effective or even without any studies at all. But it's a neat field for pharmaceutical companies as the market for their products suddenly becomes much wider than just the sick and because those still-healthy people are able to keep on working and paying for the medications, too. - None of this is intended to bash prevention, just to point out that it should be held to the same standards as other treatment forms.

|

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

An Announcement 



There will be more parts to my series on why feminism is still very much needed. So sad, that. Links to the first six can be found in this post.

If you haven't read those yet you have to send me a donation. I'd like a Daimler with burl walnut paneling. Or you can just go and read the posts in the series so far.

I also noticed that I have become rather radicalized by writing that series. It's as if I took the thin veil off my snakey eyeballs and suddenly I see! The brightness, it hurts! I peeled my skin off to write those posts and does that hurt. To pretend to see a society from outside leaves you seeing it that way for quite a while, no matter how hard you try not to do that.

What hurts especially hard is how funny sexism is. It's really funny, and those who cry sexism are the funniest of all. Also, wimmin are funny, because they are such emotional critters and have tits which they should show more. Britney Spears is funny! Paris Hilton is funny! Olivia Newton-John cannot sing! Chicks don't dig music! Nancy Pelosi has bug eyes! Condi Rice is a cold bitch! Hillary Clinton is a nutcracker! Sarah Palin is stupid! (Well, of course George Bush is stupid, too, but we don't spend centuries discussing that.) And all those grating female voices! I never realized how many people find those voices objectionable. I must be all alone in not being able to listen to Joe Biden's voice.

There's an odd paradox going on. On the one hand we get those science reports about how men are the logical sex and on the other hand we pretend that the playing field for women is completely and totally even in this culture, that there is no need to cheer for the Firsts among women, because women already are either even or the overladies of everything.

|

Oh The Struggle of Genes! 



Did you come across this science piece in the New York Times:

Two scientists, drawing on their own powers of observation and a creative reading of recent genetic findings, have published a sweeping theory of brain development that would change the way mental disorders like autism and schizophrenia are understood.

The theory emerged in part from thinking about events other than mutations that can change gene behavior. And it suggests entirely new avenues of research, which, even if they prove the theory to be flawed, are likely to provide new insights into the biology of mental disease.

At a time when the search for the genetic glitches behind brain disorders has become mired in uncertain and complex findings, the new idea provides psychiatry with perhaps its grandest working theory since Freud, and one that is grounded in work at the forefront of science. The two researchers — Bernard Crespi, a biologist at Simon Fraser University in Canada, and Christopher Badcock, a sociologist at the London School of Economics, who are both outsiders to the field of behavior genetics — have spelled out their theory in a series of recent journal articles.

"The reality, and I think both of the authors would agree, is that many of the details of their theory are going to be wrong; and it is, at this point, just a theory," said Dr. Matthew Belmonte, a neuroscientist at Cornell University. "But the idea is plausible. And it gives researchers a great opportunity for hypothesis generation, which I think can shake up the field in good ways."

Their idea is, in broad outline, straightforward. Dr. Crespi and Dr. Badcock propose that an evolutionary tug of war between genes from the father's sperm and the mother's egg can, in effect, tip brain development in one of two ways. A strong bias toward the father pushes a developing brain along the autistic spectrum, toward a fascination with objects, patterns, mechanical systems, at the expense of social development. A bias toward the mother moves the growing brain along what the researchers call the psychotic spectrum, toward hypersensitivity to mood, their own and others'. This, according to the theory, increases a child's risk of developing schizophrenia later on, as well as mood problems like bipolar disorder and depression.

What fun that outsiders can now make up theories about behavior genetics! I have one that has to do with the gender of all these researchers and the person who wrote the article as well as the kinds of terms selected here: "tug of war" between the sperm and the egg, indeed. I bet they are armed to their teeth, those eggs and sperm. Might it not be the case that these researchers started from their own gender war and worked inwards from that, hmh?

Then to the actual questions they pose which is really whether all these conditions are largely inherited from one parent (note that showing that for just autism doesn't prove their theory at all): There's a very simple way of getting some evidence on that. It's well known that the tendency towards schizophrenia has a genetic component. For instance, if both parents have it in their family lines the child is at a much higher risk. Now go back to those studies and find out if schizophrenia appears to be inheritable only in the female line or much more strongly through that. Then do the same for depression and bipolar disorder. Easy peasy.

But that's not what all this is about. It's about Simon Baron-Cohen's theory that people have male brains and female brains, the former being all systematic thinking and the latter being all emotions. Indeed, the article I link to specifically mentions his role as the starting-point of these theories. That Baron-Cohen is not an expert on genetics, either, doesn't matter for these boyz. That the test he offered for determining which kind of brain you might have is severely biased doesn't matter. That his book on all this ends with a fairly open scream of rage about the unfairness of this world to men doesn't matter. That he wrote two long chapters in it about his imaginations and dreams of the prehistoric society which created that systematizing male brain and that emotional female brain doesn't matter.

I'm not fighting against doing research of this kind or popularizing it, by the way. I'm fighting against the lower standards this kind of research is held to, and the language that is being used in the popularizations. Another example of that:

The theory leans heavily on the work of David Haig of Harvard. It was Dr. Haig who argued in the 1990s that pregnancy was in part a biological struggle for resources between the mother and unborn child. On one side, natural selection should favor mothers who limit the nutritional costs of pregnancy and have more offspring; on the other, it should also favor fathers whose offspring maximize the nutrients they receive during gestation, setting up a direct conflict.

The evidence that this struggle is being waged at the level of individual genes is accumulating, if mostly circumstantial. For example, the fetus inherits from both parents a gene called IGF2, which promotes growth. But too much growth taxes the mother, and in normal development her IGF2 gene is chemically marked, or "imprinted," and biologically silenced. If her gene is active, it causes a disorder of overgrowth, in which the fetus's birth weight swells, on average, to 50 percent above normal.

Here's the "struggle" again, between first the mother and the "unborn child" (hmmm), then between the mother and the father! The mother is all alone on one side. The fetus would love to grow humongous (except of course then it wouldn't get born at all and though it would win the war against its mother as she would die, so would the fetus)!

And this bit is very odd: " On one side, natural selection should favor mothers who limit the nutritional costs of pregnancy and have more offspring; on the other, it should also favor fathers whose offspring maximize the nutrients they receive during gestation, setting up a direct conflict." Why odd, you might ask? Because it assumes that once a baby is born it gets up and starts merrily procreating. A big and bouncy baby born out of a dead mother would have had a very tough time procreating, given that it might have died in the absence of breast milk and daily care. It's also odd because I usually read that argument in a slightly different format, that it's the men who want women to have pregnancy after pregnancy, to maximize the numbers of their own offspring, and that it's the women who want to limit the numbers of their pregnancies to stay alive a little longer.

In summary, note how this story is on the face of it a neutral discussion of some rather wild conjectures, but on the deeper level it sets women against men and mothers against both fathers and their own children.

So it's not really about autism and schizophrenia at all. But if we took the approach used in this popularization seriously we might then conclude that men seem to be doing well in this gender struggle as the rates of autism are rising.
-----
While looking for those Baron-Cohen links on my blog, I came across a post about Desmond Morris' new book, all about male superiority. What was very odd is that he, too, links to Baron-Cohen's idea that it's only men who collect things (supposed to be because they are systematizing). Bad research really does have staying power. Soon we shall all agree that it's men who collect things even though every yard sale and every flea market and every antique shop I visit has more women than men in them.

|

A Fun Prank 




New York Times Special Edition Video News Release - Nov. 12, 2008 from H Schweppes on Vimeo.

|

The Good News And The Bad News 



Which would you like first? I'm gonna give you the good news first: A little birdie tells me that president Obama, once in office, might rescind the Global Gag Rule. That would be a perfect beginning for his reign, I think, because it would help the poorest women in this world and the ones with fewest options.

Then the bad news: The Catholic bishops have stated this:

The nation's Catholic bishops Tuesday approved a statement declaring that if the Democratic-controlled Congress and the incoming Obama administration enact proposed abortion rights legislation, they would see it as an attack on the church.

I'm not quite sure how abortion rights legislation would be an attack against celibate men, but let that one pass. And yes, I know what they mean by "the church."

|

To Read With Your Morning Beverage 



How about this study which looks at women's equality across the world? Right now it's the middle of the night so I won't offer my opinions on it, except to note the large variation between countries which suggests that social, religious and cultural norms are all having an effect on the rankings. Oh, and the United States ranks 27th.

You can read the actual report from the study here (pdf)

|

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Happy Blogoversary! 






To this blog. Thank you for all I have learned from you. Thank you, Suzie, Skylanda, Phila and Anthony McCarthy (in reverse alphabetical order this time)! Thank you, those of you who comment. Thank you, those of you who read. Thank you, those of you who lurk. Mwah.

|

On Nailin' Palin 



Here's the thing, the thing that seems to be missed by almost everybody when we discuss the treatment of Sarah Palin and whether feminists should rise up in arms and defend her or whether she's so horrible that it's OK to bash her even with sexist weapons (cunt, twat, Caribou Barbie) or whether feminism should die if it dares to defend someone like her (when there are so many valuable causes for feminism) and welcome to the post-feminist era (because feminism is no longer needed):

The question has zero to do with Sarah Palin as a person. The question has everything to do with Sarah Palin as a spoonful of that amorphous mass called womanhood. When sexist commentary is acceptably used with Palin it allows sexist commentary to be used on all other uppity women, then on all women who are not-so uppity, then on the women who have been made into doormats.

I'm not sure why this point isn't clearer. When I wrote about the sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton I wasn't writing on her behalf. She's powerful, she's rich, she will be OK. But seeing how a woman who is powerful and rich is reduced to the status of the bitch from hell, the monster with AMBITION!!!, what does that tell us about how other women might be treated in politics, in the media in general and in this society? Hm?

No, I'm not defending the Sarah Palins or Hillary Clintons of this world when I write on topics like these. However tangential they may be, all of my feminist writings are ultimately intended to defend the little girls who were born today on this planet.

|

Monday, November 10, 2008

Five Years 



Tomorrow will be the fifth anniversary of this blog. It's pretty astonishing. I hope the blog managed to work a teeny-weeny bit to help the election victory last week. I have no idea if it did or not, but it's nice to think so.

Anniversaries and birthdays are always a time for me to think about where I've been and where I'm going, and this one is no exception. The world is going to be a little different now and its needs and demands are also going to be different. So what would you suggest I should do with this blog? I have now a great team (of unpaid writers) and perhaps we could go towards some sort of a larger site, with proper technology and chat groups and such? A real team blog. Of course it would have to be organized by someone else than me, because I know where my strengths and weaknesses lie. My strength is to cling to one point like a limpet. If limpets cling to one point.

I was reading Joanna Russ's The Two of Them (much recommended, by the way), and something a character said in the book made my inner bell toll. She was offered a way out from a horrible situation but she refused to leave because that would mean "leaving her dreaming behind". There goes the limpet! Or doesn't go, as the case might be.

This is not the proper anniversary post, by the way. That will be tomorrow. I'm gonna try to make a great effort to stay perky and positive and happy all of tomorrow! Yes, indeedy.
|

Today's Television Quote 



It's from yesterday, actually, and it was jotted down so the quote may not be exact, but the meaning is worth discussing:

Juan Williams

"Power Panel"

Fox New Sunday

20081109

"I would think that feminists would be up in arms about the way
Sarah Palin has been treated."

Feminists would be up in arms and nobody else? That's the old assumption that when someone thinks a woman somewhere is treated badly, it's time to pick up the phone: "Feminist cleanup team to Aisle 8". The rest of human beings have no obligations about this at all, not other women and certainly not men. It's a very entertaining aspect of our public political discussions. The status quo, the mainstream view, is that we can bash women as women and that it's perfectly acceptable.

There are days when I wonder why nobody else sees how ridiculous that is, especially given the large budget feminists have for working on behalf of that majority of world's people. And given the fact that at other times the same people who are using that pink courtesy phone (to call up the feminist cleaning crew) spend a lot of time bashing feminism as a movement. Yet all that keeps them in the mainstream.

Then to the whole question of how Sarah Palin was treated. How am I to evaluate that, given that most of her political views are anti-women and that she did say some really stupid things? That's tricky. Ideally, I'd have data on several politicians, both men and women, who have similar political agendas and who say similar things and then I'd compare the public reaction to these.

Alas, I don't have such data. Neither do I have any real way of knowing which of those Republican campaign leaks are true stories and which are not. All I have are my own impressions about the way Palin has been ridiculed and in what contexts, and my guess is that some percentage of the anger she has caused indeed is a sexist kind of anger, a wonderful opportunity to really attack a woman in public without getting any of the PC police to give you a ticket for it. What percentage that might be I can't tell.

Take, for instance, this:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has received her first job offer since failing in her bid to become vice president of the United States, and it comes with a large cash offer. Florida-based porn director Cezar Capone has offered to pay Palin $2 million to appear in an adult film production.

Capone, who calls himself "the king of all MILF films," promises in an open letter on his website that the film would be distributed internationally, shot in high definition, and feature a "beautiful mother recognized by all of America.... as the most desirable woman over 40."

This is not the only example of connecting Palin with porn. Whenever those examples are brought up in various chat groups the liberal/progressive reaction is to find them funny. The feminist reaction would be to point out that even a woman running for the Vice President of the United States is first and foremost, a body for fucking. The response to that would be that she was running as a body for fucking so she deserves this.

The other examples I've seen are about Palin's presumed inability to cook meals for her family and about her being a very bad mother. The latter crops up all over the place, even in feminist chats, and the basic idea is that she should first of all be taking care of her own family. If her gender was reversed we wouldn't have heard much about this at all, because Todd (Toddita?) would be assumed to be taking care of the children.

It's a mess, from a feminist point of view, because we are asked to defend a woman whose policies are not good for women, we are asked to defend a woman who was one of the FIRSTS, one of that group who is supposed to be much better than the average person in an occupation, and she was not picked on those grounds. Yet mostly we got no acknowledgment of the FIRST quality in this election, we chicks. What we got, instead, was such a spewing of viciousness about both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin that I'd be not at all surprised if no woman would run for the next hundred years. That might very well be the exact intended effect.

On the other hand, Palin's candidacy forced the right-wing Christians to support a career woman with young children at home. That, indeed, might be an odd victory for feminism, one of the very few that we can take home from this campaign year.

|

Meanwhile, in Somalia. TRIGGER WARNING!!! TRIGGER WARNING!!! 



This is a piece of news from over a week ago. I have kept it from the blog until now because she is dead whatever I do and because I wanted more attention to her case than the election week here allowed:

MOGADISHU, Somalia - A 13-year-old girl who said she had been raped was stoned to death in Somalia after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said.

Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death Oct. 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators in the southern port city of Kismayo, Amnesty International and Somali media reported, citing witnesses. The Islamic militia in charge of Kismayo had accused her of adultery after she reported that three men had raped her, the rights group said.

Initial local media reports said Duhulow was 23, but her father told Amnesty International she was 13. Some of the Somali journalists who first reported the killing later told Amnesty International that they had reported she was 23 based upon her physical appearance.

"This child suffered a horrendous death at the behest of the armed opposition groups who currently control Kismayo," David Copeman, Amnesty International's Somalia campaigner, said in a statement Friday.

Note the odd way the original article is written. Just a short summary of the case, then an odd transition into discussing how tough Somalia is for everyone.

|

Nasty Post II 



This is not so much nasty as a sad one. It has to do with this great picture that has been posted all over the liberal blogs and even by that favorite conservative (though now rather weather-vanish), Andrew Sullivan:





The picture is of all the American presidents and shows what a wonderful change Barack Obama's election has brought to the line-up, and I'm chuffed about that.

Where's the sadness, then, you horrible goddess who won't let us enjoy this moment as it should be enjoyed? The sadness came when I read several of the comments threads at places where this picture was posted and realized that many see the task of getting more diversity to this highest of offices as now completed. And if prodded about that, the response is: "Sure, of course we will get a woman president one day. Sure, once we get a candidate good enough. But of course we will get there one day. Of course."

No excitement in that, no feeling that such a choice would change the world. No urgency at all.

|

Sunday, November 09, 2008

The flip side of history (by Skylanda) 

So the election has come and gone, and with it the elation of a new day, a new administration, a new turn on the world stage. For the first time in years, the newsreels from around the world run a picture a planetary celebration around news coming out of America; instead of burning our flag, spitting on effigies of our leaders, throwing rocks at our consulates, there's a sort of cheer that matches - just maybe - the cheers coming off the streets of Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Seattle, the streets of America. Take a moment to fancy that.

The next four years will test a young president the way few have been tested before; the only comparisons that come to mind are JFK and Clinton, because few modern presidents have been so fresh out of the box and faced with such turbid waters. It is unlikely that Obama will be able to do everything he set out to; if he accomplishes half of it, if he merely makes the progressive left feel like we're not fighting a headlong upstream battle just to keep things from getting exponentially worse, well, I'll consider that a win given the steaming heap of economic and foreign policy shit he's been handed from the git-go. And if he manages to throw in some legacy-building health care reform, climate reform, sustainable energy policy, whatnot, more power to him. My expectations after the Bush years are mighty low indeed; it will be hard for an Obama administration not to exceed them.

But before looking too far forward, it might be interesting to take a quick look back to Tuesday, before the landslide came screaming down the mountain to sweep eight years of Republican rule to a demoralizing ruin.

Like thousands around the country, I worked in one of the local precincts on Tuesday. I was part of the local voter support crew (one woman raised an eyebrow and nixed the previous term, "comfort captain," saying it made her sound too much like post-war geisha). These were the people you might have seen handing out snacks and water in long lines at the heavily-tread precincts, lending out umbrellas in the particularly rainy and sun-shiny states, there to provide voters in long lines with whatever it might take to keep them there and cast their vote despite the odds of wait times and inclement weather and voter intimidation and the like. They wouldn't have been wearing Obama t-shirts or pins supporting their local Dem candidates, and you might have mistaken them for the local chamber of commerce for all the non-partisan talk they professed; we were under strict instructions to avoid mentioning our party affiliation unless directly asked, and not to talk politics with the voters in line. Just make sure they reach the head of the line and vote.

As you can imagine, this was all very strategic. There was no "voter support" in the historically red precincts; there were no democrats handing out bottled water in districts where registration is 75% GOP and prior elections show a heavy lean to the right. This was among the most data-intensive grassroots efforts I've ever seen; the national security apparatus and your local credit bureau alike would be cowed by the means with which data was put to on-the-ground strategic use.

Nowhere was this more apparent than in the half-launched, half-failed (but sure to be tried and tried again) "Project Houdini." Newsweek ran a blurb about it last week, so I assume the cat is out of the bag and all the hush-hush about it is so relevant as last week's bird-cage liner, so here goes: ya know those folks who knocked on your door so many times before the election, begging you to get out and vote? And all those folks who were peering over the precinct judges shoulder, checking off your name as you came in to vote? All that data, all that information, every bit and byte of it, was streaming into a real-time database. On election day, canvassers in the target blue precincts started out with a precise list of who had voted and who had not (naughty and nice, oh yes, you've heard this before), and they knocked on the not-yet doors. At three intervals throughout the day, every precinct in the nation was to live feed their lists into a central system, and that system would spit out new, honed lists for the canvassers to hit up. Five hundred canvassers in my podunk town alone. This was a massive effort, build from the ground up with volunteer true-believer labor, wratcheted into place by the technological prowess and mass communication infrastructure of the internet generation waking up to realize that we might just elect a guy who actually admits he's never used email. The effort was a wonder to behold.

Of course, in most states the system crashed at least once during the day. In my state, it hit the skids early in the morning and never picked up at all. It was replaced by hand counting, eyeball cross-checking, and the late-afternoon realization that come Tuesday, just about everyone in this town who was going to vote had already done so.

In my assigned precinct on Tuesday, it was so quiet that the epic lines we were expecting never materialized: a steady trickle of voters strolled in, took up their ballots from some very bored precinct judges, and strolled along their merry way. By the end of the day, the precinct judges were joking about our efforts out front that the only people we were supporting to stay through the chill of the day were ourselves; I know this because I ran into one of them at the local brewery during the McCain concession speech and we about it over a couple of beers (this is, as I mentioned, a very small town). Boredom was the goal, I reminded myself during some of the slowest hours: because of the push for early voting, the day itself ran smooth as silk in just about every precinct in town. I couldn't tell you the final numbers, but my precinct had an early voting rate of about 54%; we rough-counted the remainder who voted on Tuesday, and came up with a total around 80%. Eighty percent - in a state where a good year turns out maybe forty percent of the voting public. Whatever the turnout, when the winds drove us in just short of 7 pm, we couldn't help but think that this was democracy done right.

But all was not quite so unruffled throughout the rest of the state. Because of the heavy early turnout, voting on election day was unusually light. At five in the afternoon, a wave of panicked phone calls came out from headquarters; too few voters were coming out in the target precincts, the number weren't crunching, the statistics weren't spinning their tales just right to guarantee the state for Obama. Every able body was being pulled off every other position to canvass for every available vote in the urban areas where the houses are close enough to go door to door trolling for those last few votes. The polls had just closed on the east coast, they had just called Kentucky for McCain and New Hampshire for Obama, and that didn't make it look too promising on the numbers alone. I polled my crew of four (one of whom was raised Jehovah's Witness and swore on her undead mother's grave that she would never knock on a stranger's door again), and we collectively decided the best we could do was uproot a four-by-six foot Obama sign from an unguarded corner, hike it down to the busiest nearby intersection, and wave it around like idiots in the wind hoping that by dumb luck a few souls would drive by and remember - d'oh! - that they hadn't voted yet.

By the time the polls closed and we had showered and turned ourselves back out onto the streets, the polls for the eastern states were coming in, then the south and midwest, and once you cross that threshold where all you have to do is add California's ridiculously large blue block of electoral votes, the night came to a thunderous head. My state did indeed go blue - and by a very comfortable margin - and the five o'clock panic was all for naught. There were few mourners on the streets around us that night, and even in this small town, the celebration ran dark into the night and light into the morning.

Nearly a week later, and for many years to come, November 4th, 2008, will be a date to reckon with. Not so much because the country swung so far to one side or the other (the electoral college may have slid home like mud from a clear cut forest slope, but the popular vote never wavers more than ten points off the midline), but because the Democratic party finally grew up to run a 21st century campaign. This is how the GOP has been running campaigns for thirty years - sophisticated, well-thought, well-organized; this is why red routinely comes out on top even in states like New Mexico, where registered Dems outnumber registered Republicans by half again their number but so few bother to go to the polls that the state's electoral weight often swings a dozen shades right of the state-wide sentiment.

Still, there is something tragic, something profoundly anti-democratic about the reality that winning a campaign relies on strategizing, planning, playing a game of Risk with your demographics and your people. Gone are the days when people could simply decide what they think, vote their conscience, and government could answer to their constituents on that basis. Maybe it is naive to think that ever existed anyhow. But if this is the game we are to play - the game of grassroots demographic man-handling - thank god the bare remnants of the progressive left that we have in Washington have learned how to play it too.

And so, bottoms up: to a Democratic executive branch, to a Democratic congress, to the promise of a reasonable Supreme Court into the foreseeable future. History is upon us, and suddenly - the unmitigated travesty of Prop 8 aside - it just isn't looking quite so bad.
|

Civil Unions and the All or Nothing Principle by Anthony McCarthy 

It was one of the unanticipated benefits of sharing my thoughts about things like the political realities around gay marriage that I’d be subjected to several long lectures on why I, though a gay man, am not thinking correctly about the issue. My attempts to forego platitudinous stands on principle to try and understand the issue in real life today, are not to be countenanced. Oh, did I mention that those volunteer lectures were delivered by several straight men?

It’s kind of funny to have a straight man berate you, a gay person, for not being uncompromising enough on gay rights.

Watching one of the women who brought the court case allowing gay marriage last Wednesday. was difficult. She was heart broken and had every right to be. While I have reservations about the political practicality of winning that freedom in the courts at this time, she was asking for what is her right. That wasn’t where we disagree. We disagree on where the struggle is at this time and on how to obtain that right and the timing of it. But we apparently have an interim disagreement on principle.

In her statement she rejected civil union as an unacceptable compromise of equality. And, face it, civil union is a compromise position*. But we don’t live in a perfectly equal society, we all accept compromises in our lives. While she has an absolute right to reject civil union for herself, other lesbians and gay men don’t make the same choice, which is their right. I can’t see any reason to insist on what you can’t have or to delay having something better than the status quo just because you can’t get what is best. Not as a blanket principle, that is. Civil union which is essentially the equivalent to marriage would be the difference of a word, only. Other civil union laws that confer some benefits of marriage but not others would still leave those entering into them better off than before. That is a choice they have to make.

As for straight people who take an all-or-nothing stand on behalf of myself and other gay people, no, thank you, no. You don’t get to make that call. One of the more strident voices against compromise by civil union told me he was a married straight man when I pressed it. Doesn’t a straight person who enters into marriage in a state which doesn’t allow gay marriage actively accept that inequality for their own benefit? Shouldn’t their absolutist stand apply to themselves as well? Especially if they vicariously reject civil union for gay people who might disagree with their moral absolute? You would think that level of moral certitude would carry the obligation to not accept the benefit so unequally provided to them by the law.

Straight people don’t get to choose for gay people what compromises they accept when they can’t get it all. Lesbians and gay men don’t get to choose to reject civil union for others as a sell out. People have the right to as much equality as they can wrest out of an unjust society. Slaves denied the right to marry didn’t give up the attempts to form marriages and stable families, their status as chattels notwithstanding. They often tried and sometimes succeeded. Except in rare instances, lesbians and gay men in the United States aren’t faced with that kind of active prohibition to forming the equivalent of marriage. If they can’t where they live, they can move to a place where it is allowed and there are legal ways to provide some, though not all, of the legal protections of their committed relationship. While that necessity is unjust, it, never the less, is a possibility today. It is the status quo of the vast majority of gay people living in the United States. Even if California had allowed equal marriage rights, almost all other states don’t, the federal government and many corporations don’t and that fact still makes gay marriages in Massachusetts definitely not the equivalent of straight marriage even there.

There is no reason to see civil unions as settling for something, it can be a stepping stone, a way to obtain what rights we can, enjoy the benefits of those and fight on towards the farther goal of complete equality. The failure of the Equal Rights Amendment (which should be revived) didn’t mean that women shouldn’t enjoy what rights they could get in the mean time. I don’t think a country in which many places legally disallow a full range of rights based on gender preference can let the struggle for those lapse while this one, very difficult to obtain, right is focused on. We need as many of our rights as we can get at any one time. Marriage absolutists have no right to insist we defer those for a right many of us will not use to begin with. By all means, lets work on it, but not just on that issue.

* The idea of civil union might carry a benefit that marriage doesn’t, it doesn’t need to imply that there is a sexual relationship between two people. From what I understand the largest group of people in France taking advantage of a form of civil union are unmarried daughters and their mothers. I don’t see why sex should be a necessity for two people who want to maintain a stable household based on mutual affection and support and to have the law recognize and encourage that kind of household.
|

“Blocs” Don’t Vote, People Vote. Equality Is An Inescapable Prerequisite For Democracy by Anthony McCarthy 

I.
So much was made of the so called Bradley Effect before this election that you would have thought it was a law of nature instead of an unverified excuse given by some pollsters for why their opinion polling failed to account for what happened at the polls in a very few elections.

I wonder if a meta study of polling in general, comparing that done in elections in which only white candidates were entered and those that generated what I think of as the “Bradley excuse” would show that the discrepancy in that race was all that anomalous or if only the attention given to the race of Tom Bradley provided them with an needed excuse in that one. Whatever, it doesn’t seem to have happened this time.*

The bad habit of mistaking a category created by pollsters as an undifferentiated electoral identity seems to be most in evidence this week surrounding the California gay marriage ban. “The black vote”, “the Latin vote”, “the x vote”, is held to have split, supporting Barack Obama and also the denial of a civil right to millions of lesbians and gay men.

Well, there isn’t a “the black vote” there are only the votes of people who are identified as black, individual votes by individual human beings. Some black people voted for Obama and against the ability of gay people to marry, some people identified as black voted for both. I’d imagine there are black people who voted for McCain and against gay marriage. Hard as it is to imagine how those positions could co-exist in one mind I’d guess there are even people identified as black who voted for McCain and for gay marriage rights.

The same range of possibilities, I am certain, exist for those covered by the blanket “Latin vote” and even “white male Catholic vote for those with less than an high school education” I’m absolutely confident that some assigned for convenience to that most benighted group voted in the most enlightened and egalitarian way. .

One person, one ballot”, is the small verbal leap needed to break out of this mental manacle, the definite article of stereotype, so beloved of convenient sociological generalization.

There is no “the black vote”, we don’t even have to worry about conducting a meta study to overturn that damaging nonsense. There are people who vote and if they don’t support some aspect of civil rights now, they might be persuaded to in the future. That is the work of political progress, that is the essential step we have to take. It is entirely possible. If it wasn’t, we could forget about gay marriage rights because the majority of people in the United States cast “the heterosexual vote” and “it” is decidedly not there for gay marriage now. “The heterosexual vote” used to not be there for employment and public accommodation equality for gay people in any place. No more than “the white male vote” was there for the equality of women, black people, or most other group identities. But progress has been made and the law, at least, generally is equal for covered groups.

That is the work that remains to be done, individual people have to have the case for fairness and equality made to them. Some will understand it put in those terms, some will have to have explanations based on self-interest, some will have to have a more liberal scriptural argument made to them. And some will never be willing to support civil rights for lesbians and gay men because their hate and bigotry will not be overcome. We have to persuade an effective majority of the electorate, we don’t have the luxury to write off anyone based on their ethnic, religious, gender or other sociological abstraction. We don’t know who we can persuade based on those stereotypes but we do know that we need their support.

II.

The marriage referendum in California brings up a seeming contradiction for advocates of democracy, how can someone believe in government of and by The People but be opposed to their voting on gay marriage?

We live in a diverse society, two genders, many ethnicities and religions and other identified groups. All of those people are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, it is a non-negotiable promise given to ensure freedom and to promote a decent and peaceful society.

Just as the ability of informed individuals to cast a rational vote is the essential logical assumption for identifying their right to vote, equality is the key moral value which makes democracy possible. Without legal equality, the divisions into privileged and unprivileged would soon turn into some form of aristocratic despotism. The guarantee to equal protection of the law covers us all, it is a guarantee that can’t be denied on the basis of majority vote or it doesn’t securely exist for anyone. Equal means equal, it doesn’t mean some people are more equal than others and those who deny others their equal rights today, can find themselves targeted for discrimination tomorrow.

Equal protection of the law, equal access to legal remedies of violations of rights, equal access to public accommodations for all of the residents of the United States is a right inherent to everyone. That is a bedrock necessity, both a logical and practical necessity, for having democracy, the right of self-government. Both majority rule AND the equal protection of the law are requirements of democracy. To the extent that one is violated, the other will also suffer, both equality and self-government erode in an unjust society. A good and peaceful society, one which works to provide a decent life for all of us is the goal of democracy, justice is a basic requirement to get that. It is non-negotiable, it isn’t a matter of choice.

* In other words, racists are embarrassed about being racists and too stupid to come up with another plausible excuse made to themselves and so tell a pollster that they are undecided when they really aren’t? And that people doing all those things at the same time are statistically significant? Though I doubt that, who knows? From what I’ve read, apparently no one. The existence of the “Bradley effect” was never scientifically verified, it remains as a pop-science theory based on pollsters convenient excuses for their errors, something to fill the air time of all day cable junk news. Apparently there wasn’t such an effect in this election.
|

Saturday, November 08, 2008

A Nasty Post I 



There will be more nasty posts in this new series, which is based on the idea that I got of collecting all the things that keep irritating me like a pebble in my shoe, things which keep happening over and over without anyone correcting them much, things which are like frogs leaping out of the mouths of otherwise intelligent people (this being a reference to fairy tales).

I recently read a comment somewhere about how the oppressors are white Christian heterosexual men and how everyone else should join forces against them and that way we would win. This is terribly simplistic for several reasons:

First, we all have the ability to be oppressors, given the opportunity to be so. There was a time when the Irish attacked the shores of Britain to capture slaves for themselves. Then later the British enslaved the Irish and so on. History can tell us that the once oppressed can quickly become oppressors when the tables are turned.

This is why I find the victim-focused or the oppressor-focused approaches insufficient without a long and hard look at what makes people oppress other people in the first place. True, writing boring theory is -- boring -- but I see no way around that problem.

Second, being oppressed doesn't necessarily make a person good, kind and otherwise fascinating. Being oppressed can also make a person bitter and vindictive or most likely just down-trodden, passive and hopeless. To expect that the oppressed are saintly creatures is really very insulting. Should women have equality ONLY if they are much, much better people than men? Yet I read a lot on the web based on the idea that all victims are very good people. Many of them are, of course, and many also learn from their own oppression to have empathy towards others who are in pain. But many are just plain nasty and still deserve not to be oppressed.

Third, and this appears a large surprise to quite a few if what I read on the net reflects reality: The different groups of the oppressed are perfectly able and often willing to have prejudices about each other. It's not exactly secret that the women of Palestine are treated as lesser creatures by the men of Palestine, for example, and it's not exactly the case that a feminist can never be a racist or homophobic and so on.

This point came up rather sharply when Proposition 8 passed in California last week, thus banning same-sex marriage, when it turned out that the decisive votes for its passing were those given by African-American voters, three quarters of whom supported it. Several blog comments threads on this topic turned out into odd debates about who it was who should really be blamed for the passing of Proposition 8, in terms of race and religion, mostly, and to me the discussions looked like an attempt to get back that thinking where all the oppressed are together and fight against not only their own oppression but that of all the other groups, too.

Which isn't exactly how the world works, sadly. For instance, study revolutions from the French Revolution onwards, and note how women participated in those revolutions and how very quickly (like in a second) the post-revolution setup pushed women back into their old oppressions or something not much different.

None of this cynicism is intended to argue that groups shouldn't build alliances or work together, because those are good ideas. What's not a good idea is naivete about what lies behind these alliances.

|

Filibusters Of Obama’s Nominees And “moderate” Republicans by Anthony McCarthy 

I don’t buy the necessity of Democrats having a 60 vote margin in the Senate. It certainly wasn’t necessary for Republicans to thwart filibusters when they had a smaller majority than Democrats have today. The agreement between “moderate” Republicans and conservative Democrats made in order to prevent filibusters when Republicans held a narrow majority in the Senate should be considered a contract and the obligation of the Republicans who signed on to it kicks in now. They can't support a Republican filibuster without exposing themselves as hypocrites and their Democratic allies in that contract have to hold them to it.

They can point to his year's election having turned out the last “moderate” Republican house member from New England. That should be a constant reminder to Senators Snowe, Collins and Gregg of who puts them in office and that Obama won all of New England so he could change things. The stand they took when the reactionary Frist was in charge of the Senate has to be brought up now so they can't forget it. Then they were against filibusters to put some of the most putridly reactionary federal judges in place. And they aren’t alone in the hypocritical blather that put some of the worse of conservative judicial activists on the bench. I think that kind of “principle” is useful only to show how unprincipled a lot of principle is.

It’s time to tell the “moderate” Republicans that their choice is to follow Chris Shays into forced retirement or to “moderate” their standing with regard to the worst of Republican duplicity and obstruction. Snowe and Collins are too conservative for the state of Maine, Gregg is likely too conservative for the New New Hampshire. Their party is lurching ever farther to the right, they’re either going to have to distance themselves from their party or they’ll go down too. They can certainly be embarrassed and exposed as hypocrites clinging to the practices of the dead end of the Bush regime, their political future can be made much more difficult for them.

Lieberman has got to be kicked out of his chairmanship, his kind of treason has to be punished as a warning to himself and others. Most of the people I’ve read on the subject expect that’s what is going to happen, I think throwing him out of the caucus is probably essential as well. There is no reason for Democrats to suffer his backstabbing and duplicity now that he isn't needed. Throwing him out could also make him far less useful to the corporate media since they can't claim that he is what he hasn't been in years, a dissenting Democrat. The TV time his hypocrisy gets him seems to be what he lives for, it's got nothing to do with principle.

If his constituents want to try to harness their conceited "independent" Senator and get him to work for them instead of promoting his media career, that's their job.
|

Ahead, Though Much Too Slow, Is Still Faster Than Backward by Anthony McCarthy 

As hard as it is to make up my mind what is going on the top of my reminder list, Iraq is certainly a good place to start. For numbers of people killed, maimed, displaced and subjugated by sexism, ethnic and religious oppression resulting from the Bush invasion, for the sheer lying illegality of it, the invasion of Iraq can lead the column.

I’m just making a list of the crimes and incompetence of the Bush II regime to remind me of why I should not become irrationally angry with the certain to come shortcomings of the Obama administration. For all its certain disappointments, what preceded it is certainly worse. Whatever else he turns out to be Barack Obama is not going to run a criminal enterprise to wage wars of conquest and to loot the common wealth of The People of the United States. He is not going to trash the world for profit in what is clearly the puerile delight in unfettered destruction engaged in by the Bush thugs. We on the left should remember what it was like, especially in the years when Hastert ran the congress and Lott and Frist ran the Senate as well. Iraq, Katrina, Enviornmental plunder, Economic Plunder, Starving of the middle and lower classes, Destruction of civil liberties .... the list is too long to finish.

We should also keep a perspective on the distance in time from the vanishing starting point, to the unseen place where we’re headed. As Ellen Goodman put it so well in her last column

When we're young, we think change is a 100-yard dash. As we get older, we think it's a marathon. Eventually we see a relay race.

The point of progress we for conceive of as completion is not going to come during our life times. And by that time there will be new futures to strive for, hopefully in the direction of an even more equal and decent society.

Consider how long it has taken to get here, not just the last two years of hard work and enormous cost to get the results of this election. In 1961 Abbey Lincoln sang about the road to progress that was Straight Ahead though much too slow. It was the time before before the civil rights legislation of the middle of that decade, the road ran through that and then on. That legislation more than forty years ago, was an absolute requirement to where we are today. Barack Obama's acceptance speech shows that he is well aware of that clearest of facts.

Barack Obama will sometimes seem disappointingly centrist to me and I’m certain to many of you. But within the context of the world I grew up and came of age in and especially in what has happened in the past three decades, his election seems like a miracle. The center today is farther left than it was on Monday, that point has already moved.

Yes, it’s too slow for those of us who are impatient for the future we can see as a rational possibility and a vital necessity. But it’s not just our world. We don’t set the speed limit, we don’t control the throttle. Maybe this is as fast as it’s going to go. It’s indisputably as fast as it has taken to get this far.

We should never forget that as we are disappointed, Barack Obama’s election and overturning the control of the Congress took an enormous amount of effort and unprecedented expense on the part of the winning coalition. We should consider the achievement of this week as a world record which will probably stand for a long time.

We have to also understand that we’ve got a stake in this coming administration and congress succeeding. We’ve spent a lot of our limited resources to get this far, we probably aren’t going to do any better under prevailing conditions. This is our chance. We can get to the left easier from where this election brings us, the center is closer than we’ve been for decades. We can build on a successful Obama administration, we won’t ever be able to build on electoral failure. That absurd idea has been tried and it has failed completely. The dialect doesn’t seems to not work to get us past right, we are going to have to push on history without its help. The left isn’t strong enough to do it alone, we need our allies a lot more than they need us. Our best strategy is to make ourselves essential to the larger coalition and that can only be done from within. Outside, where our more impractical members have kept us for most of the past half-century, we get nowhere. Inside, important to the agendas of our partners, we count for something. We have the ability to point out that we have contributed to the electoral success of Barack Obama and the Democratic majorities in the legislative branches. We have that right and that responsibility. We have the responsibility to use what influence we can obtain wisely and for its greatest effect. The left cannot draw on a pretend reserve and back it up with threats. That has bought us nothing but nothing in the past.

Anyone who refuses to work within the reality around us has got to be left behind. That’s their choice. The path ahead is dimly lit, difficult and much too slow. But today we can at least see where it goes on from here.
|

Friday, November 07, 2008

Women as a voting bloc (by Suzie) 

 

         In 1994, I questioned (in print) why women don't elect more women to office, considering that we constitute a majority of voters. Because this question continues, I thought people might be interested in an excerpt from that article:
         Voters value ethnicity, religion and party politics more than gender, explains Susan MacManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida. These values start in the home: Black children learn early about slavery, as do Jewish children about the Holocaust. But many girls don't hear about women's history until sometime later in school, MacManus says.
          Society has not paid as much attention to discrimination against women, she says, and people are less likely to agree about it - and less likely to think about it when they go to the polls.
          Women don't have the sort of group consciousness that creates a voting bloc, says Pamela Conover, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. "The core of group politics is us vs. them."
          Ethnic groups that are somewhat segregated can see how ethnicity affects their lives and can recognize shared interests. Integration breaks down that group thinking, Conover says, and no group is more integrated than women.
          "We sleep with the enemy. We live with them. We love them. They are our families. It's harder to get women to think in "us vs. them' terms."
           After women won the vote, men ... convinced many women that politics should be left up to the men, Conover says. Many women who were adults when the suffrage amendment passed never voted.
           "In my mother's generation, you voted, but you voted how your husband told you to," she adds.
-----------
       This article relates to Ann Nixon Cooper, a 106-year-old voter mentioned in Obama's victory speech. An Associated Press story notes that she first registered to vote in 1941.
Though she was friends with elite black Atlantans like W.E.B. Du Bois, John Hope Franklin and Benjamin E. Mays, because of her status as a black woman in a segregated and sexist society, she didn’t exercise her right to vote for years.

Instead, she deferred to her husband — Dr Albert B. Cooper, a prominent Atlanta dentist — who “voted for the house.”
          Black men began to vote in Atlanta in 1867 and at least some continued to do so, despite violence and statutory limitations. Women got the right to vote in 1920. Here's a good essay on the history of black voting in Atlanta. But it has little on black women, an issue raised in this article.
           For a related post, please see what Echidne wrote in her back-to-the-basics series: "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."        
|

Thursday, November 06, 2008

Echidne The Career Advisor Auntie (Viewer Advisory: Ranting) 



Here comes your pretty lead parachute for your career (not pink, not blue, not golden: lead): Become a writer who advocates for women's rights! It's a wonderful life, full of interesting debates and battles and you can piss off your nearest and dearest without any effort. You will stay in excellent mental shape, because your enemies are always looking for a way to take you down.

And those enemies abound. Let me count the groups:

1. Misogynists. Self-explanatory.
2. Religious fundamentalists. Self-explanatory.
3. The male-dominance-is-natural-and-impossible-to-change crowd among evolutionary psychologists.
4. Men who like women the way I like spaghetti with pesto. I don't want the pesto to get up and demand a plate and a fork, either.
5. Women who like men who like women the way I like spaghetti with pesto.
6. Men and women who are oblivious to the anti-woman aspects of our society and who don't want to be made to see it.
7. Men and women who benefit from the anti-woman aspects of our society.
8. People in the feminist movement who don't find you adequately feminist.
9. People in the feminist movement who find you feminist in the wrong way.
10. People in the feminist movement who find you far too feminist, thus ignoring the awful lot of male human beings.
11. The Independent Women's Forum gals.
12. Guys who want to talk about tits and cunts and to tell sexist jokes without getting told off by a prissy feminist. (Why is PMS the name of the premenstrual tension syndrome? Because mad cow disease was already taken.)
13. Almost anyone you pester by bringing up unimportant and stupid special interest topics about women when the Whole World Is Collapsing. Also anyone you appear to be blaming for the lot of women in this world. Anyone you give feelings of guilt.


Now isn't that list great fun? You get to debate them all! AND you get the honorary title of a Man-Hater.

What about the money, some of you might wonder. Don't you at least get rich doing all that work?

Well, at least I got a good belly laugh from that last question.

|

The Job With No Paycheck 



What are First Ladies for? I suspect that their two most important tasks are to humanize the president and to give us all a nice empty bowl into which we can pour our preconditions, desires and fears about the gender roles in the United States. Hence the need to criticize the softness or hardness of the First Lady candidates in this presidential race, the need to find out if she dares to meddle in men's affairs or not, the need to reassure ourselves (well, for some of us) that he indeed is the boss in that family. Oh, and she is also supposed to be open to fashion critiques.

But in addition to that job, largely not seen as a job, the First Ladies also work quite hard. They have to be present at all those dos, to preside over countless dinners, to attend zillions of events, to travel, to smile, to shake hands, to answer letters and to work on some harmless-looking but oh-so-important-topic which actually isn't going to go anywhere. It's quite a hard job, being the First Lady, you know, with very long hours, a staff and a budget.

So what's the pay for this job, eh? As far as I can ascertain, there is no paycheck at all. None. This doesn't matter in the real-world financial sense, because she gets money from the president, just as all those other little ladies do. Perhaps that's her paycheck? But then she is his employee, not the employee of the whole country. Like a private social secretary and housekeeper and PR person all rolled into one.

Thinking about all this yields some heady feminist analysis, you know. Note that the First Lady is viewed as free labor for the country. The presidents are supposed to come with one, as part of their staff. How she is paid is up to him. What would happen if we got a president with no wife? Would he then be allowed to hire someone for the job and to actually pay the person out of federal funds? Or would we assume that he could do all that and presidenting, without any extra funding?

What all this means for the Obamas is that we view his election as a labor contract between not just Barack Obama and the country but also between Michelle Obama and the country. Yet she is not getting paid, because she is really viewed as part and parcel of him. I'm not sure why everybody feels free to criticize the First Ladies when they are not even paid for the job.

|

Turning Away From The Abyss 



That is the first meaning of this election for me. I'm overjoyed by having an African-American president for this country, but I'm even more overjoyed (should such a thing be possible) about the way we have managed, at the very last minute, to grab the steering wheel of this bus we call the United States and to stop it from its imminent careen into an abyss. Now we can wipe our foreheads, take a couple of deep breaths and then start working on all that damage the bus has. There's a lot of work ahead (those wheels must go back on, for example) and progress will initially consist of just all that delayed maintenance. But don't forget that it really is progress.

Glenn Greenwald points out an important aspect of that maintenance: Two or three Supreme Court Justices are likely to retire in the next four years. Had McCain been elected, the court would have become a rubber stamp for the Republican Party.

|

My New Approach 



These days after the election feel like the beginning of a new year. My new year's promise is to become more demanding. I have been far too hesitant and nice. (*Bites off the head of a mouse.*)

Let's take this piece of news from Wednesday:

Papal officials, Islamic leaders and scholars began a historic summit in the Vatican yesterday, aimed at laying the foundations for better understanding between Catholics and Muslims, and averting future crises in relations between the world's biggest religions.

The three-day meeting is a direct outcome of the Muslim reaction to the Pope's controversial address in 2006 in which he appeared to link Islam with violence and irrationality. Last year, 138 Muslim scholars and clerics, dismayed by the violence the speech had provoked and fearing a "clash of civilisations", issued a manifesto stressing the values shared by Islam and Christianity.

I demand to know how many women participated in this summit on each side, both as absolute numbers and as percentages. If the numbers are tiny or non-existent I demand that the summit be called something suitably boyish.

|

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

Rumors 



This source suggests that President-Elect Obama might consider Lawrence Summers for his cabinet. I hope that someone points out to him the reasons why picking Summers would be a very nasty gesture to one group of voters.

|

Welcome to the meritocracy (by Suzie) 



         Echidne, forgive me for posting now instead of Friday, but I couldn't wait to share the good news of the meritocracy.
         In McCain's concession speech, he implied that electing an African-American as president proves that anyone can succeed in this country if they work hard enough. If they don't succeed, it has nothing to do with obstacles, but with their own wounds. We should expect this theme to continue.
        I've always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Senator Obama believes that, too. But we both recognize that though we have come a long way from the old injustices that once stained our nation's reputation and denied some Americans the full blessings of American citizenship, the memory of them still had the power to wound.
         A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to visit -- to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African American to the presidency of the United States. Let there be no reason now -- (cheers, applause) -- let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.
          Democrats are co-opted because of the narrative adopted about Obama. For example: I just came back from Ecuador, and I talked to people there who found him inspiring because they thought he had risen from great poverty. I related this to the friend who picked me up at the airport, and she agreed that this was true. Saying that isn't true does not take away from the fact that he has achieved something historic.
          In his victory speech, Obama described his campaign as coming from the grass roots, minimizing the incredible organization and marketing efforts, and the reliance on super delegates for the nomination. Now that he's elected, I wish we could stop mythologizing him.
         I have friends who adopted the talking point that Obama has a great ability to unite, forgetting the divide of the primary. I don't think he could have won if the Clintons had not campaigned their hearts out, rallying Hillary supporters like me. I wish he had added her name to the many people he thanked in his speech.
        Bonnie Erbe also wonders what Obama may do to repay his debt to her. 
|

Music For Today 



Nina Simone and "Here Comes The Sun"




|

This is Good. This is Bad. 



Good:
On the whole the elections led to defeats of anti-choice ballot initiatives and to a more pro-choice Congress. I'm too tired to write a careful post on this yet, but Colorado defeated the proposal to define fertilized eggs as human beings and South Dakota defeated the proposal to criminalize almost all abortions (once Roe would be overturned). As an example of a more pro-choice Congress, John Sununu (who is anti-choice) lost to Jeanne Shaheen (who is pro-choice) in New Hampshire's Senate race.

Bad:
Proposition 8 in California is about to pass. It bans same-sex marriage in the state of California. If you are interested in the demographics of those who voted for and against this initiative, check out the exit polls. Similar bans also passed in Florida and Arizona.

|

Someone Had To Pee in the Punch Bowl 



Imagine me dancing around the house, giving snakes cold kisses and feeling -- well, divine -- about Barack Obama's election victory. Then on MSNBC I get to hear Michelle Bernard, one of the Independent Women's Forum gals (an anti-feminist group), expound upon whose victory this really was: It was a victory for the manhood of black men. Black men needed to get their manhood back. Then she added something about wanting no e-mails from her African-American sisters about this. So the victory was for black men and nobody else, I guess. Certainly not for black women.

I then looked up this "favorite guest" of Chris Matthews. And I find that she wrote this last June:

Does sexism still exist in America and are some voters unlikely to choose a woman for president? Of course. But racism also still exists, and undoubtedly has cost Senator Obama as many votes as sexism has cost Senator Clinton. Indeed, both Clintons have played the race card. To Senator Obama's credit, he has not wasted his time whining about this ugly historical legacy, but has worked to create a new reality.

Consider the membership of the U.S. Senate. There are fifteen women and one African-American. Is sex or race the bigger barrier to winning high office?

Here it looks like she's comparing the effects of racism and sexism, and we are supposed to use "fifteen" and "one" as the crucial numbers (without relating them to the population numbers of women and African-Americans, I guess, which is incorrect use of statistics).

But now we aren't even supposed to let African-American women enjoy this election victory! Not only does she prioritize racism over sexism as she did last summer (thus joining the Oppression Olympics); she now redefines the victory as a victory for black men.

Chris Matthews looked like a cat who had just lapped up a saucer of heavy cream, with a big grin on his face. He is a misogynistic asshole.

And on top of all this, women's votes were crucial in getting Barack Obama elected.

|

From Emily's List 



This information:

EMILY’s List Helps Elect Hagan and Shaheen – only the 14th and 15th Democratic women to have ever been elected to the US Senate in their own right.



EMILY’s List Helps Elect the Second Largest Group of New Democratic Women to the House in History



With four victories earlier this cycle in MA-05, MD-04, CA-37 and CA-12 – and the victories tonight, we helped elect the largest new group of Democratic women to the house since 1992. As of midnight, those victories include:



· In Florida, Suzanne Kosmas overcame outrageous attacks and defeated ethically-challenged incumbent Rep. Tom Feeney.

· In Illinois, Debbie Halvorson prevailed against wealthy self-funder Marty Ozinga in one of the most competitive races for the U.S. House.

· In Colorado, Betsy Markey fought back against nasty personal attacks to defeat right-wing extremist incumbent Rep. Marilyn Musgrave.

· In Arizona, Ann Kirkpatrick won a strong race to defeat anti-choice mining lobbyist Sydney Hay to take this seat back for Democrats.

· In Maine, progressive champion Chellie Pingree won a tough primary and went on to defeat Charlie Summers.

· In Ohio, Marcia Fudge has confirmed her place in the house to continue the tremendous work of the late Stephanie Tubbs-Jones.



Democratic Women Sweep North Carolina



Along with Kay Hagan’s victory, North Carolina made history tonight by electing Bev Perdue it’s first woman governor. EMILY’s List Political Opportunity Program also helped create victories for two other Democratic women running statewide in North Carolina: Janet Cowell, who is the first women elected as state treasurer, and Beth Woods, who will take office as state auditor.



EMILY’s List Political Opportunity Program Helps Take Back the New York Senate



It has been 85 years since Democrats control the New York State Senate. The EMILY’s List Political Opportunity program has been working with the New York Senate Campaign Committee for three election cycles to turn that around. Tonight that partnership paid off, giving Democratic control of the Senate and putting the Democratic leadership firmly in control of the critical redistricting in New York.

Note that these are not necessarily final news and I haven't yet dug up information on Republican women in the House and the Senate. That will be later today. In the meantime, this site has some results.

|

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Election Thread 



This thread will be about the results as they come in. Use the comments thread to discuss the elections, your voting experiences, what you'd like to see happen in the next few months in government, what your favorite dessert is and how much you adore me. Stuff like that.

Indiana results have started coming in. More generally, CNN has the whole country results here.

This map from MSNBC is updated as results are predicted. Kentucky has been called for McCain. I'm not sure how reliable the map is. MSNBC also has a live feed here.
(Yes, my lovelies, women in their election coverage are indeed represented by Rachel. One woman is plenty for 51% of the population.)





8:20pm. Senate: Jeanne Shaheen (D) is projected to win over John Sununu (R) in New Hampshire.
8:36pm. Senate: Kay Hagan (D) is projected to win over Elizabeth Dole (R) in North Carolina.
9:29pm. Ohio is predicted to go to Obama. It's getting difficult for McCain to win this. Not impossible, but difficult. And yes, the MSNCB still has only one person of the girly persuasion. Plenty for 51% of Americans.
9:31pm. New Mexico is predicted to go to Obama. Ohio and New Mexico are both swing states.
10:10pm. Some very good news: The South Dakota "draconian" abortion ban failed. So did the Colorado proposal to define a fertilized egg as a human being.
10:21pm. Colorado predicted to go to Obama! I'm especially pleased with that one because it contains Wingnuttia Central.
11:00pm. MSNBC CALLS IT FOR OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



|

A Voice From The Past 



In honor of my fifth anniversary as a blogger I'm reposting some old pieces. This was posted on November 30 2003:
---------------
Today's quote comes from Rose Macaulay: Mystery at Geneva (1923):

All sorts of articles and letters appear in the papers about women. Profound questions are raised concerning them. Should they smoke? Should they work? Vote? Marry? Exist? Are not their skirts too short, or their sleeves? Have they a sense of humor, of honor, of direction? Are spinsters superfluous? But how seldom similar inquiries are propounded about men.

The more things change...
---------------
Isn't it funny? Not funny-ha-ha, of course, but funny in any case. We are still asking which things women are allowed to do and what the problem with women might be.

|

Art on the Beach 



This story is fascinating, in its way, about a large Obama painting or sculpture (not sure which it is technically):

Cuban-American artist Jorge Rodriguez Gerada and an army of helpers sculpted it from sand on a Barcelona beach in northeastern Spain.

The team battled days of rain to finish just ahead of Tuesday's election. It is 140 yards long by 80 yards wide — big enough, Rodriguez Gerada hopes — to be photographed on Google Earth. The face was created using 500 tons of sand, gravel and white, brown and black pebbles at a cost of more than $13,000.

The team largely funded the project themselves, and the city agreed to let them use a stretch of beachfront at no cost.

Rodriguez Gerada says he did not intend to endorse Obama.

"The piece is not really based on giving support to Barack Obama," he said. "It is more about questioning Obama-mania."

Still, Rodriguez Gerada said he chose the large format as an allusion to the global importance of the American vote, and to represent the hope Obama has inspired in his supporters.

You can see the artwork here. The ubiquity of photo shopping makes the picture less impressive than it should be.

What about "Obama-mania?" Now that's a tricky topic to discuss, for all sorts of reasons. To have hope is so important and to demand more from politicians is also important. Yet to put all one's hopes on the shoulders of one man is most likely a recipe for disappointment. No one person can change a whole political system overnight, especially when the system is in an extremely precarious state of health and requires many painful and protracted treatments to recover. No one person should be expected to do that. It's too big a burden, and in any case Obama is a fairly middle-of-the-road kind of guy in his actual policy proposals.

At the same time, not to have those kinds of hopes is a recipe for utter cynicism. What we have lived through in the last eight years requires a vast correction in both actual policies and in political engagement, and for us to be able to make that correction requires hope and optimism and the willingness to work very hard.

In a sense, then, I think we should both hope and not-hope, at the same time. Perhaps this is the "optimism in hope, pessimism in expectations" that I've read about.

Then again, ProfWombat makes a good case for just plain old hope.

|

On Election Day 



Vote if you haven't already. Then a very, very stupid question:

Why on earth are the elections not held over a Saturday and a Sunday?

More people could vote with fewer sacrifices (in terms of lost pay, having to work overtime to make up lost work or having to hire childcare) and that usually means that more people would vote in general. Employers should love this, because most of them don't need workers over the weekends and thus wouldn't lose money over the elections. If the polls were open two days the question of either one of them being someone's religious holy day would be less important.

Alternatively, voting could be organized in some high tech form. That these simple remedies are not strongly supported, that registering to vote is made as burdensome as possible in many states, all this suggests that the real intention is not to have too many people vote.
----
Added later: Amanda has done a proper post on this topic.

|

Miles to go (by Skylanda) 


Normally Echidne only lets us guest posters post on the weekend. My hope is that she'll forgive me this one little trespass into her weekday dominion.

I can't remember where I got this graphic from - I believe it arrived un-bidden in my inbox, and I think there's a citation on the bottom. I like it.

But it's not quite time for cheers and toasts and bottoms up, the time has not yet come to chill. That time may come - maybe not, we will see - but this morning, as the sun rises across each state, there's still work to be done.

So this morning, here's a post of praise and of thanks.

Thanks to every precinct worker who is out this morning in the cold of a northern November morning - or a hot Florida fall day - making democracy work for all of us.

A shout out to every canvasser pushing to get out the vote for progressive candidates everywhere.

A sigh of sympathy to every citizen of a foreign nation who is sitting on their hands tonight knowing that though they have no say at all in our election, their fate is profoundly bound up - for better or for worse - in who we elect to the American presidency today.

A thunderous cheer for the voter registration workers that have newly enfranchised thousands - nay, millions - of voters from traditionally marginalized walks of life, some of whom have been at the edges of representational democracy since the days of Jim Crow. Not since the beginning of the Civil Rights movement has there been such a push to see so many Americans take their rightful place among the voting public, and not since then have we had such hope for a government that truly represents an America that looks like all of us.

And to every poll worker, voter support crew, and door-to-door street canvasser, who will be working those dawn to dusk shifts today to ensure that voters are able to exercise their rights in those contested and crowded precincts: if there is celebrating to be done tonight, it will be in your name and in your honor. Until then, as the old poem goes, miles to go before we sleep. Miles to go before we sleep.

One way or another, the race is on: here we go. Any way it shakes out, November 5th, 2008 will be a hangover to remember. I'll see you on the flip side.
|

Monday, November 03, 2008

A Useful Reminder 



If you somehow missed my six-part (so far) series on the need for feminism, you can still read it!


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

6. The Longest Revolution

|

Go Vote 



Perhaps not something I need to remind anyone who reads this blog, but remember to vote. As Hecate (of this blog) pointed out last night, people have fought, struggled and died for the right to vote. Such a gift for us, such an honor and such a responsibility.

And of course the election outcome is of utter importance right now.

|

Fun With Free Markets 



Not really, but this coincidence is worth pointing out: First the Chinese are now having trouble with melamine-tainted eggs. Melamine is suppposed to be used in kitchen counter-tops and the like, not in food, but it gets there because it registers as protein in the cheapest ways to measure protein and it's a lot cheaper than protein for the producers. Of course it's not a food...

You may remember melamine in pet food and how it killed cats and dogs in the U.S., then in milk which killed small children in China, then in candy and so on, and now in eggs. An unregulated market with less than perfect information provides incentives for stuff like this, and that is one of the reasons markets need rules and regulations. Of course it's true that markets often ultimately "self-correct" (though it's the government who has gone in to destroy the melamine-tainted animal feed), as is the case in China right now. But the cost is a lot of death and a complete collapse of the markets in which the problems finally are diagnosed. Just ask the Chinese dairy farmers.

That's the first set of events. The second set is this: Behind our backs while we are all eagerly looking towards the elections and the next administration the current administration is busily scratching consumer-protections and environmental protections everywhere. De-regulating the markets as busily as it can!

|

A Voice From The Past 



I'm coming up for my five-year blogoversary, and I decided to repost some of my earliest posts as a part of the celebration. This one is an early post explaining more about me as a goddess. It's quite funny, too. You can click on the original to see the hyperlinks, some of which still work.

Pornography Goes Mainstream
Did I ever mention that retired gods and goddesses may sometimes take human form? Aphrodite has chosen to become an eighty-year old widow living in Florida. She adores Mickey Mouse, neon pink golf carts and polyester pant suits. She was really fed up with her long reign as a sex goddess, and wanted a more active life. I stopped by recently. We had a ball.

She took me to this new Viennese tearoom for women. They served exquisite little pastries, and the place was packed with 'dite's cronies. After we were served our cappuccinos, the waitress told us to help ourselves to all the tidbits on the center table. Can you believe this? The cakes and pastries were daintily arranged on the reclining still form of a gorgeous naked man? He was a real cupcake!

I reached out for a canape in his left armpit and watched his pupils dilate. His eyes moved to point at the large painted sign which warned against any bodily interference with the 'model'. So we could only look, not touch. And look we did.

I asked the waitress if the tearoom had had any problems with meninists protesting against their use of a male platter. She laughed and said that all publicity was good publicity. Besides, everybody knew that meninists had no sense of humor. We all agreed that we really respected and admired men, especially this lovely studmuffin!

When we were replete with cakes and the platter covered but with crumbs, 'dite took me back to her condo to watch some daytime soaps. I kept nodding off on the couch until she turned the channel to Oprah's show. The day's topic was "Getting in Touch with Your Inner Erection". It seemed to consist of some man flogging his book on 'bagel dancing'. The gyrations and contortions around a bagel suspended from a string in the ceiling were supposed to make men fit and better in the marital bed. I started feeling slight bouts of indigestion. I'm not a prude, as any of you may check on the Google, but this was just getting to be too much.

Men are people, too, after all. What was going on? Had 'dite interfered with earth's essential vibrational frequency? She adamantly denied having anything to do with these sexxee developments among men. Supposedly men had just collectively decided that titillating women was sex-positive and healthy. As proof 'dite mentioned a newspaper article about men's athletic wear stores in Paris. To drum up more business, these stores had hired coaches to teach men how to remove their jockstraps in an alluring fashion. One young man was quoted as saying that he had never before really understood how important it was to remove the football socks before rather than afterwards. The store had hung up framed sayings supposedly by Simone de Beauvoir: "The high time of the day on the sports fields is not when a man suits up but when he takes it all off for his woman."

I did mention to Aphrodite that according to the article there had been protests by some men's groups outside the store. She waved this detail away with her tennis-braceleted arm and pointed out an ad in a magazine I was leafing through as further proof of the same trend in sexual liberation. The ad was selling sweatshop-free underwear for men, but the pictures were extremely revealing crotch shots from below.

"Sort of pornographic, don't you think?" I asked. She nodded. "Porn has gone mainstream now. Care for a round of golf?"

-----------

I have slightly played with the truth in recounting this story. If you insist on the more politically correct but boring facts, here they are: Sushi served on a naked female, pole-dancing on Oprah, Parisian strip-tease lessons for women who buy underwear and American Apparel's ad for women's panties.

An interesting postscript:1. Folks in Seattle decided to alter the world to match my story better. That's the power of goddesses for you. See naked men as doughnut platters. 2. Daniel sent me this. It is a Swedish revision story of pornography going mainstream. In actual pictures. "Ombytta roller" means swopped sex roles. Just keep clicking on "mer sex"! I bet Aphrodite is behind this one, too.

|

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Sunday Music Blogging (by Phila) 



I posted this at my place earlier, but figured I might as well put it here, too.
|

Rock Out With Your Glock Out (by Phila) 

Doug Giles encourages "young dudes" to quit being "wussies" and realize that Obama is gonna, like, totally take away their freakin' guns, man! For reals!
Yep, Dufus, if Barack becomes dictator — I mean president — and you begin to see your right to bear arms erode like Bill Clinton’s conscience at Hooters and you commence to spot the sport of hunting disappearing like a massive bag of Cheetos in front of a rather peckish Rosie O’Donnell, I sure as heck don’t want to hear any of you Obama backing wussies whine about it.
Fuckin' A! If Giles' gnarly, balls-out 'tude isn't enough to convince you, I suggest that you commence to spot the fact that "Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration." Worse, he "voted to limit gun purchases to one per month." Check it out, dude: Do you want to prevent Bill Clinton from sexually assaulting your mother, and save your Easter ham from being swallowed whole by that fat dyke Rosie O'Donnell? If so, it's gonna take two or three guns, minimum. Anything less would be like trying to screw [insert stupid liberal bitch's name here] without a bottle of Viagra and a burlap sack. Am I right, dudes, or am I right?

Obama has also voted to "ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting (United States Senate, S.397, 7/29/05)." If you're a pencil-dicked wussie like me, something about the phrasing of this complaint might inspire you to revisit what the bill in question actually said. As it happens, S. 397 was sponsored by that consummate he-man Larry Craig, and was intended "to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition." Ted Kennedy offered an amendment that would've protected police officers by restricting the use of armor-piercing ammo in handguns, and Obama wisely supported it. (It failed, by the way.)

Since all regulations on ammo are, by definition, part of a plot to impose metrosexual tyranny on full-blooded American dudes, it was obvious to the cognoscenti that this was a back-door (!) attempt to make deer-hunting (and, by extension, traditional masculinity) impossible. If you can imagine it happening, it will happen; denials, appeals to logic, and facts to the contrary signify nothing more than the lengths "they" will go to deceive tough-minded (yet hopelessly insecure) gun owners:
I know what some of you are thinking: Garsh Doug, Obama said he would “let us” keep our guns, and he doesn’t have a problem with hunting. Yes, I know that Barack said that, Dinky. He also said that Ayers is just a dude from his neighborhood, he didn’t know Rev. Wright was a freak, Iran is a little non-threatening nation, “spreading the wealth” is not socialism and Michelle Obama really is nice and loves America.

Hello!
Totally! TMI! Don't even go there! Talk to the hand!

In summation, whether you're a young white dude in Overland Park who plans to buy three assault weapons this month, or a young black crack dealer in West Baltimore, for whom Michelle Obama's message of hatred and vengeance is all compelling, Giles has some friendly, totally non-wussified advice for you:
So . . . young dude . . . before you do something goofy on November 4th by voting for Obama, please, my young gun and hunting fan, please go to Starbucks, order a double espresso and wake the hell up and vote for your Glock.
Just for the record, Giles is a preacher who claims to keep the dominionist RJ Rushdoony's Institutes of Biblical Law on his desk, and sees himself as "injecting some testosterone [at last!] into the church."
|

A Busy Period (by Phila) 

We all remember how the Clinton team vandalized the White House after the 2000 election, in a last-minute orgy of petulance before the Adults came in to restore order. Although it didn't actually happen, it nonetheless communicated something essential about the horrific nature of the Clinton Regime: The fact that they didn't do it doesn't mean they couldn't have, or didn't want to; there's no smoke without fire, after all.

The Bush Administration, by contrast, prefers to spend its last hours vandalizing the entire continent:
As the U.S. presidential candidates sprint toward the finish line, the Bush administration is also sprinting to enact environmental policy changes before leaving power.

Whether it's getting wolves off the Endangered Species List, allowing power plants to operate near national parks, loosening regulations for factory farm waste or making it easier for mountaintop coal-mining operations, these proposed changes have found little favor with environmental groups.
Well, those people are always complaining. People who matter seem to be quite happy with the effort, not least because BushCo is taking careful steps to ensure that the regulations will come into force before the inauguration:
The burst of activity has made this a busy period for lobbyists who fear that industry views will hold less sway after the elections. The doors at the New Executive Office Building have been whirling with corporate officials and advisers pleading for relief or, in many cases, for hastened decision making.

According to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.
Here's my favorite part:
One rule, being pursued over some opposition within the Environmental Protection Agency, would allow current emissions at a power plant to match the highest levels produced by that plant, overturning a rule that more strictly limits such emission increases. According to the EPA's estimate, it would allow millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, worsening global warming....

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman, said that he could not discuss specifics but added that "we strive to protect human health and the environment." Any rule the agency completes, he said, "is more stringent than the previous one."
That seems like a crazy thing to say, until you consider who benefits from this increased "stringency."

I don't think it's remotely realistic to believe that McCain would undo this damage if he were elected. I also think it'd be dangerous, if not fatal, to wait until 2012 to start working on the project. That leaves Obama as my only hope, which doesn't exactly fill me with confidence; while I'm pretty certain that he has the political skill to defuse these environmental time bombs, I'm not entirely convinced he has the will. If he's elected, I'd like to see a task force dedicated to solving this problem within the first 30-60 days of his administration (if not before).

Granting that some people on the Left remain unwilling to vote for Obama, for whatever reason, I hope we can all agree that these changes are unconscionable, and that we'll all be willing to apply whatever pressure it takes to get these insane, brutal, stupid anti-regulations overturned.
|

"Science " Undermining The Efficacy of Reason Is Inescapably Anti-Democratic by Anthony McCarthy 

As a never ending source of soc-sci nonsense, the well known Boston Globe’s Sunday “Ideas” section can be lots of fun. But this morning’s nonsense about political and even partisan political behavior being biologically determined strikes me as both absurd and dangerous.

Eve LaPlante joins a list of “Ideas” scribblers in undermining the assumed efficacy of such antiquated and romantic concepts as reason, which many of us take as one of the essential guarantees of effective beneficial political action, in favor of the, frankly, scientistic-religious iconography of “brain scans” and those always at hand, twin studies. Her faith in the arising priesthood of political scientists aping alleged scientific methodology, would be “scientists” of "political physiology", is sufficient that not a single word of skepticism is allowed to enter her article in today’s paper.

As with so much of this bilge, those hankering after the prestige and glamor given to this kind of stuff, cog-sci glam boy Steven Pinker was an inspiration:

John Alford, one of the study's authors, said that these genetic study results, along with his reading of Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate," persuaded him and other scholars to embark on a quest to uncover the physical correlates of political ideology. Pinker's book argues against the popular conception of the brain as a blank slate, which in his view skews research across disciplines, in favor of the notion that the brain possesses innate qualities that influence individual experience and opinions.

"To what degree are we political scientists guilty of implicitly assuming that the human brain is a blank slate?" Alford recalls wondering. Does political ideology have roots in biology? Could genes predict how someone might vote?

The next step for the young field was to look for ways that genetics and biology might affect social and political opinions. "We needed to find an actual path from genetics to how people feel about political issues of the day," Hibbing said, "and then to see what physical systems are involved in these feelings about politics."

Passing up the clear fallacy of equating an (alleged) correlate with causation, I just love how “ the next step” is always the same, to get a few scans of brains, a few of those wonderfully predictable “twin studies” and a few dozen non-randomly chosen test subjects together to invent an entire new “field” of “science” For example:

A subject of this study, seated in a chair in the lab, is a resident of Lincoln, Neb., who has been identified from random phone calls. In the initial phone call the subject indicated to researchers that she felt strongly about a political issue or had based a vote on the basis of a single issue. Since then she has responded to a lengthy questionnaire about her political attitudes.

As the images and noises are presented, a machine records the subject's physical responses. An electrode above her eye measures automatic muscle movements that make up the "blink startle" response. A lead attached to her finger measures "skin conductance," the amount of perspiration on the skin, another physiological sign of stress.

After examining 46 such subjects, researchers found a strong correlation between subjects' political attitudes and their physiological responses to threat. People who showed more "blink startle" and perspiration after a threatening stimulus tended to cluster on the right politically. They advocated capital punishment, school prayer, and defense spending, and they supported the Iraq war.

In contrast, liberals - who supported "less protectionist" policies such as gun control, open immigration, and increased foreign aid - showed significantly less physical response to the threatening stimuli. While education had some effect on the results, subjects' blink and skin-conductance responses were much better predictors of their political attitudes. And the degree to which a person was startled by threatening stimuli indicated how much he or she advocated policies that protect society from external and internal threats such as wars and crime.

46 test subjects. 46. And that's divided into two groups, so let's assume actual samples of 23. If you could find 46 randomly selected subjects and come up with a coherent description of “conservatism” or “liberalism” as sufficiently fixed category so as to form, unanimity among short-lived political discussion groups, it would be a miracle. If university level political science “scholars” can’t appreciate the complexity of what these guys are proposing to do science about, they don’t need to be branching out but handing out dope slaps.

Of course, behavior sci being what it is today, the entire shoddy mess is alleged to demonstrate evolutionary adaptation.

In fact, viewed through the long lens of evolutionary time, it would seem that the two camps depend on each other. A person who's hard-wired to protect himself from danger may be able to avoid getting eaten by an attacking tiger - while his neighbor, who's hard-wired to adapt to change, may sense an impending Ice Age in time to escape.

This is the reassuring note offered by political physiology at the end of another long, divisive American presidential campaign.

"The biological variation between liberals and conservatives is itself adaptive," Alford said.

The evo-psy habit of pretending what it says it sees through their entirely imaginary "long lense" can function as real science has become one of the most pervasive and insane manias of our intellectual class. There doesn’t seem to be much of any protest against it by real scientists, though I’d imagine eventually a reaction is going to set in.

But protecting the integrity of science is the business of scientists. When this anti-democratic junk starts to make its way into politics, it is all of our business. This stuff, not science by any honest definition, has the same potential as pseudo-sciences of the past to gain political influence. When a major, respected newspaper in the United States can print an article like the one linked to, we are in serious danger from it. If scientists won’t call them on it we peons who favor democracy will have to.

Democracy presupposes the efficacy of informed reason, it cannot exist without that. Other parts of the fashionable pseudo-sciences undermine other essential prerequisites of democracy such as equality and self-sacrifice. I don’t see any way in which democracy can withstand these academic assaults without us calling them on their scientific and scholastic short comings and basic dishonesty.
|

Guest Lineup for the Sunday News Shows 



You might wish to count the number of women among these guests, the last Sunday before the election:


___

ABC's "This Week" — David Axelrod, campaign adviser for Barack Obama; Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain.

___

CBS' "Face the Nation" — Axelrod; Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and John Ensign, R-Nev.

___

NBC's "Meet the Press" — Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.; former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn.

___

CNN's "Late Edition" — Sens. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Govs. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Mark Sanford, R-S.C., Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn., and Deval Patrick, D-Mass.

"Fox News Sunday" _ Davis; David Plouffe, campaign manager for Obama.

|

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Little Old Ladies (by Phila) 

Patricia Lee Sharpe of the excellent blog WhirledView catches this obnoxious quote from Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle:
“We aren’t a bunch of little old ladies in tennis shoes,” Pacelle says, paraphrasing his mentor Cleveland Armory, an animal rights activist. “We have cleats on.”
Ms. Sharpe points out that "the notion that grandmothers generally are soft-headed, slightly-addled bundles of sentimental sweetness who must be protected from ugly realities is...more than a little ludicrous and insulting."

Which is certainly true. But I'm also irritated by the implication that these feeble, silly women (and feminized men like yours truly) have had their chance to address the issue of animal cruelty, and it's now time for a new breed of hypermasculine go-getters like Pacelle to kick ass and take names. Like so many other problems, this one becomes truly serious only when men -- real men, with cleats! -- get involved.

In fact, many of the difficulties involved in protecting animals boil down to gender politics of a particularly witless and ugly kind (as witless and ugly men like Jonah Goldberg and Daniel Clark are more than happy to demonstrate). Which is why I get distressed (in a disgustingly feminine way) when activists like Pacelle -- or the far more offensive folks at PETA -- fail to grasp the ideological connection between their portrayal of women, and the popular view that indifference to the suffering of farm animals is "normal" and "rational."

Of course, I'd argue that this logic cuts both ways, which is why I hope that any readers who are in a position to help California's Proposition 2 pass will do so.
|

The Concept of Non-Ownership (by Phila) 

I've been thinking lately about the form that architecture takes in an economy based on land speculation rather than, say, industrial productivity. Is there a certain type of building, or building style, that becomes dominant during a real-estate bubble?

McMansions seem like the obvious answer. They increase in size as land values skyrocket. And their interiors seem oddly divorced from how people actually live; they recall traditional ideas of wealth and gentility that were based on an entirely different sense of time and space and leisure, with the result that even when they're inhabited they have the feel of something that's outlived its purpose. They seem more like a crude stereotype of a rich person's house than an actual dwelling. Or a marker and a warning, like the hotels on a Monopoly board.

I was also brooding about how shopping centers seem to grow quainter and more village-like as communities become more fragmented, and houses more imposing and unwelcoming. Which reminded me that I'd addressed this question several years ago, in a long post on architectural imitation:
It's strange how often we romanticize aspects of America that we blithely destroyed because there was money to be made. And it's even more strange that having destroyed such things, we replicate them shoddily, and market them as antidotes to the very psychic emptiness that made the real things seem worthless.
At a cost hardly anyone can afford, I should've added.

Apropos of which, the American architect Lebbeus Woods notes that Americans increasingly view homes as "instruments for getting a return on their money," and wonders whether a new and improved American Dream could be built around the idea of non-ownership:
Architects, locked for so long in the ideal of home ownership -— from Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City, where everyone would have their sovereign acre of prairie (and a Wright house planted squarely on it), to Frank Gehry’s twisty luxury condo tower in Lower Manhattan —- have difficulty generating any comparable vision of the American home. It is telling that the most gifted designers today —- American and not -— can only come up with snappy new wrappers for prevailing, but finally fading, ideas. The current bursting of the “housing bubble,” and the coming financial shakeout, which will be global in extent, and giga in scale, could leave them with more time to consider the reality of how most people live, and about the nature of home in the contemporary world.

The concept of non-ownership would be good a place to start. Or, at least, with the idea that money is not at the heart of it.
It sounds like Georgism but with state-owned housing, which sounds like communism, which means that Obama will undoubtedly get right on it if he's elected.

Meanwhile, over at BLDGBLOG, Nicola Twilley discusses "micro-territoriality as both a cause and a symptom of social exclusion." She's responding to a cognitive mapping project that asked young people to draw their neighborhoods as they perceive them; what makes this project especially interesting was that the participants' maps included "enemy" areas:
Some of the sketches...remind me of medieval maps: the known world is an island of familiarity, simultaneously shown much larger than scale but made tiny and precious by the monsters of “Terra Incognita” that surround it. In the case of a 15-year-old girl from Bradford, today’s dragons are “moshers,” “chavs,” “Asians,” and “posh people” – all “Enemys....”

In other words, bored and economically deprived teenagers are transforming 1960s council estates and Victorian terraces into a real-world, multiplayer World of Warcraft.
Or perhaps the game was already there, and they're trying to find a way to win it.

Twilley goes on to point out that "current policies in urban regeneration are dominated by strategies to increase 'place attachment' as a means 'to reinforce social networks and maintain the quality of an area through pride.'" This, of course, can serve to encourage micro-territoriality, which seems to persist -- or perhaps even intensify -- when a place has virtually no worthwhile qualities:
It was difficult to say which was more depressing – the relentless defense of a featureless piece of open space on the fringes of a Glasgow housing scheme where there is nothing whatsoever by way of amenities, or the confinement to a socially isolated but densely populated and built-up quarter-square-mile of London of young men for whom the culture and wealth of one of the world’s great cities might as well be on another continent.
She also notes the use of sports as a means to "encourage association" and defeat "problematic territoriality"; Anthony's recent post on sports gives us ample reason to be wary of this strategy (though Subtopia's promotion of border ball is certainly heartening).

Like Woods, Twilley wonders whether these problems can be solved by architects and urban planners: "Can the design of the city itself generate – or mitigate against – territoriality?"

Obviously, urban design doesn't "generate" territoriality; it is territoriality, period. In psychological terms, it seems to me that the question of micro-territoriality hinges on the transgression of micro-borders, which in turn hinges on security and control, and ultimately on identity (which has a lot to do with the sense of one's own position within society).

If urban design is going to reduce this tension, and encourage a relative sense of non-ownership, it seems to me that it has to de-emphasize borders (e.g., by changing the uses of transitional spaces where, as Twilley notes, most territorial violence is concentrated); the installation of a community garden in an abandoned lot would be one possible way of turning a border area into something of value to people on both sides of a divide. Facilities dedicated to community clean-up -- or better yet, mediation -- would be other possibilities.

Needless to say, ideas like these are totally alien to current political -- and therefore architectural -- trends, which stress the need for hypervigilance, perimeter security, and preparedness, and which usually boil down to security rituals whose basic steps can be recognized in international airports as well as "across the spectrum of low-income housing stock." In this sense, the maps Twilley reproduces don't seem medieval at all; their assumptions are very much of our time.

But ultimately, the assumption that we can change society by changing architecture relies a bit too much on the assumption that architecture got us where we are today; theory's fascination with power tends to make power seem fascinating, and its plans for opposing that power are too often based on familiar, imperious assumptions about the ability to impose a particular worldview on citizens by rearranging their neighborhoods. Instead of cheap imitations of a conservative past, with fake Victorian lamps, and streets named after whatever natural features were bulldozed to make way for them, we could (continue to) end up with cheap imitations of a utopian future, which pay lip service to radical ideas of community while leaving residents' day-to-day life basically unchanged.

The point is, the struggle to improve neighborhoods is largely a political one, and the work involved is not particularly glamorous, or intellectually stimulating, or aesthetically thrilling. As the radical architect Teddy Cruz acknowledges:
“I can design the coolest-looking building, or I can engage the fact that the minimum parcel size is huge and the economic and political logics have been inflated to benefit privatization,” he says. “Without advancing housing and lending policies and subsidies, we cannot advance design.”
I'd add that without advancing, say, healthcare, contraception, abortion, sexual autonomy, and marriage as basic rights, the physical and conceptual space of neighborhoods is going to be less important than the stress and misery of the people who live in them. The problem isn't simply that housing and space aren't properly designed; it's that human beings (and women too, naturally) are so devalued and debased by the formal denial of rights and autonomy and compassion that their surroundings hardly matter. If you want to move towards a society of "non-ownership," a good first step would be to affirm people's ownership of their own bodies.
|

The Bible Makes It Clear (by Phila) 

Offered without comment:
Some Web sites and conservative Christians have tried to argue that Obama could be the foretold Antichrist. In August, John McCain seemed to tap into evangelical anxiety with his ad, "The One," in which he mocked those who use messianic language to describe Obama.

The Rev. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the millennial Left Behind series, told the Wall Street Journal that he recognized allusions to his work in the ad but comparisons between Obama and the Antichrist were incorrect.

"The Antichrist isn't going to be an American, so it can't possibly be Obama. The Bible makes it clear he will be from an obscure place, like Romania," the 82-year-old author told the paper.
|

The Democratic Party Has To Get Used To Walking The Ethical Tight Rope, It’s The Only Road To Better Things by Anthony McCarthy 

Dan Payne in this morning’s Boston Globe has stolen my thunder in his campaign warp up, no matter how it turns out this election is the nail in the coffin of process liberalism. Thus a hasty re-write.

First and most importantly, if Barack Obama had chosen public financing he would be guaranteed to lose this election. It would already be over and we would know that much of the result. That he has a good chance of winning is due largely to his grass roots* fund-raising which has brought him an unprecedented ability to run a national campaign. His decision to forego public financing was criticized early on by some of the professional process liberals but it was absolutely the right decision. If you need any proof of that you can hear the echoing, outraged disappointment of Republicans that he has beaten them in fund-raising and not done what a good Democrat is supposed to do, accept a preordained defeat on principle. There is, of course, a major difference between grass roots fund raising and the traditional plunge into the deep pockets. Running a campaign on average contributions of $85 isn’t selling access, it’s funding the effort to elect a less corruption prone government.

Process reform as a strategy was flawed at its inception, taking it as a given that the courts would place an egalitarian, honest, representative government at the fore front of those rights The People fully possess. Instead they got the doctrine that money equals speech. What that really meant under the prevailing conditions was that money buys air time to lie the most corruptible politicians into office where they can hand everything over to their owners. Which is what we got, mostly from Republicans with a few Democrats joining in. The spectacle of the Reagan and Bush administrations, objectively the most corrupt in our history when measured by convictions and incompetence, has not moved the Justices off of their stare decisis in order to save the country. We can’t wait for them to see the light or to die off, if we don’t get better politicians in office those anti-democratic Justices are replaced by even worse. Clearly the process reformers are barking up the wrong tree if they think the present day Supreme Court is going to do anything that risks more democracy happening.

Another part of this stumbling over the process, was the Michigan, Florida primary situation. The primary calendar is firmly out of the hands of the parties, except in so far as they can game things through a willing state legislature. In Michigan and Florida, Republican state legislatures set a trap for Democrats and it was only through last minute negotiations that the damage from those was kept to a minimum. The Rules Committee of the DNC has got to be taken out of the hands of people more interested in rules and gaming them for their own advantage than in the Democratic candidates winning elections. I’d clean it out and start anew, dumping the scheming and those addled by abstract theories for those who know that winning elections is the only reason for the party to exist.

The rules lawyers have a lot in common with those trying to figure out how to game the process, their first loyalty clearly isn’t to The People and their ability to govern.

As Payne points out, the long season, far from depleting the funds necessary to run in the general election, gave us a candidate who had the enthusiasm of a far larger number of people. Obama became a stronger and better candidate through the long trial by ordeal.

We’ve got to give up the notion that we are going to be able to change the process at the rules and laws level, the corruptions they are meant to address run deeper, through the unmentionable flaws in our federal system and the anti-democratic rulings of Supreme Courts. Short of amending or changing the Constitution, repairing that level of the system is beyond our reach. We’ve got to work with what we’ve got.

It’s not surprising that the elite insiders in DC and other centers of power can’t understand that going directly to The People, thorough grass roots organizing on a national basis, asking them for their volunteer time and small contributions, is the logical way for The Peoples’ party to get on with things. It’s no surprise that they didn’t get the internet**.

I strongly suspect that in the aftermath of this election one of the things that will be clear is that Hillary Clinton’s connections to the connected ended up being a burden to her. How they lost such an excellent candidate so many opportunities has to be studied to identify examples of what not to do again. A lot of the people involved in her and other losing campaigns should be kept at a distance from future campaigns.

This is mighty serious business, electing our government. When conducting The Peoples' business, we can’t allow personal friendships, personal loyalties or insider status to allow the incompetent or inflexible the ability to ruin our chances to win elections.

We also can’t let those who insist on an unrealistic and unavailable ideal to hobble our candidates. That kind of sentimental idealism is a sham. It is the kind of thing that is just barely tolerable as a personal scruple to be preened over in self-congratulation, it is immoral in politics. A political principle which doesn’t get a more egalitarian, democratic and competent government into office is a failed principle. In politics, as in life, it is the results that justify the principle and determine their ultimate morality.

* Howard Dean and his 50 State Strategy and a number of other changes he made have also been incalculably important to changing Democrats prospects.

** The internet is an important part of Obama’s campaign, it’s a permanent and enormously powerful political entity from now on. It is, as this campaing has revealed, one that has inherent problems and dangers of its own. Democrats have to study those dangers and come up with effective means of dealing with them even as they are powerless to eliminate them.

P.S. The absurd idea that the country exists for The Constitution, instead of The Constitution existing for and gaining its legitimacy from The People is something that must be overturned. Unfortunately, that necessary safe guard is in the hands of the legal establishment for now. If we are lucky and he is our next president, we should remind Barack Obama, the former law professor of this generally forgotten fact.
|

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

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