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

Friday, July 31, 2009

Weekend (by res ipsa loquitur) 

Here are some weekend suggestions.

See In the Loop. I saw it last night and laughed like crazy (even though a bunch of B-List state department wankers and press flaks ginning up a war isn't funny at all). I have not seen The Thick of It, but I might have to now, because Peter Capaldi turns cussing into poetry (although I have to admit he doesn't quite rise to R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket levels).

If you find yourself in or around New York, there are film festivals celebrating two actors who couldn't be more different -- John Cazale and Cary Grant -- happening in Brooklyn. If you're not nearby, have your own festival on DVD.

Lay a blanket under a tree, pour yourself a refreshing beverage, and revel in The Elegance of the Hedgehog.

Go to All Points West.

Cook. Sometimes I send recipes to Echidne. I tend to cook a bunch of things to eat during the week on the weekend. Lately, I have been using Mark Bittman's How to Cook Everything Vegetarian . This thing is a doorstop ... and a great resource. Tomorrow I'll make some peanut sauce to eat over cold noodles and cucumbers from my SO's garden. If you're not in the northeast where local farmers are dealing with late season blight that will probably destroy their tomato crops, here is a recipe into which you can incorporate your first local tomatoes of the summer. (This one is mine, not Bittman's.)

1 lb. angel hair pasta
4 tbl. olive oil
1 tbl. balsamic vinegar
1 tsp. oregano
3 large tomatoes, chopped (or 1-1/2 cups of grape tomatoes, halved)
3 bunches of arugula
1/4 c. Parmesan
2 large shallots, sliced thin
a small handful of oil-cured black olives (optional)
zest of half a lemon
salt and pepper

Sautée the shallots in the olive oil until they just begin to brown. Meanwhile, clean the arugula and cook the pasta. When the pasta is al dente, drain it and then toss the hot pasta in a big bowl with the arugula, olive oil, shallots, and vinegar. Add the zest, oregano, tomatoes, Parmesan, and olives if you are using them. Add salt and pepper to taste (and more Parmesan if that is your preference).
|

"Mad Bitch" (by res ipsa loquitur) 

Just in case there was any question, it remains A-okay to hurl literally any slur at Hillary Clinton, especially if you're an old media dolt grasping for new media relevance from the ossifying remains of the Washington Post.

It was courageous of you to turn off comments at the Post website, boys.
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

There's no place better to sunbathe than the roof of a white car in Florida, or so says Missy, the striped auxiliary cat.
|

Royalty and heroes (by Suzie) 



Queen for a Day is a program in which beauty queens go to hospitals to give their tiaras to girls with cancer. The girls dress up and get hair, nails and makeup done. In some cities, boys participate as Kings for a Day, with fewer beauty-salon treatments. Still other cities have the Queen program for girls and a Heroes program for boys. Boys dress up and/or meet law enforcement officers, firefighters or men in superhero costumes. The Boston site explains:
We had make-up and nail polish set up along with a table full of jewelry for the girls and race cars and dress-up attire set aside for the boys. The boys had a great time as they were able to choose between becoming a military man, policeman, or firefighter and the girls were able to dress themselves with as many jewels as their heart desired.
There are repercussions when girls are judged on their looks and boys are judged on their actions. It would seem so easy to offer both boys and girls a shot at both royalty and heroes, and the heroes could include female firefighters and police officers. Some girls may dream of being superheroes, too.

Founder Jenna Edwards writes:
We all know the feeling from dressing up, putting on a little lipstick or wearing our favorite outfit. As a college student, I would dress up for exams because I carried myself differently "fixed up." It was easier to focus and I felt more energetic. That's the concept of QFAD - giving a little pick-me-up to kids in treatment for cancer. Taking care of ourselves reaches beyond treating and preventing our illnesses. Addressing our psychological needs affects our physical well-being, too.
It’s fine if girls with cancer want to get “fixed up.” The problem comes with any suggestion that that they need to do this in order to feel better. Despite its title, I prefer the Look Good, Feel Better program, which gives practical tips to adults and teens coping with changes in their appearance due to cancer. Its Web site makes clear that no one has to do anything. But if you want to draw in eyebrows, for example, or learn to tie scarves, their volunteers can help.

I recently became a poster child for sarcoma. (As the photos flash by, I’m the one with the Eddie Munster hairdo.) Cancer nonprofits often choose cheery photos, in hopes of reassuring readers. Sometimes, however, I think we need photos of people looking really awful, angry or sad, to illustrate that you don’t have to be brave all the time.

That brings me to heroism. I'm not a hero because I'm a cancer survivor. I didn’t run into a burning building to save someone. A better analogy is: I found myself in a burning building and I ran out. For children especially, there can be too much pressure to be brave. Cancer patients need the freedom to express our emotions.

Also, we may want to reconsider our definition of bravery. Last week, I saw my former oncologist, now in Atlanta. I remember hearing how she sat by the bedside of a patient who was dying. Sometimes it is more courageous to stay with someone you cannot save.
|

Thursday, July 30, 2009

(Other) Stuff I Read (by res ipsa loquitur) 

There's more to come on I Don't, but in the interim ...

Two Christmases past, a friend gave me a two-year subscription to Time Out New York. Overall, I don't love the magazine, not because it isn't comprehensive enough in its arts/cultural listings (on the contrary: it's rather exhaustive), but because the feature writing style is sort of rote. It feels to me like writers (and not necessarily local ones) are just adapting a Time Out Template for local markets.

But there are two exceptions: First, I enjoy the Public Eye feature, wherein a TONY writer stops a random person on the street and asks them what they're up or how they're doing or where they got whatever interesting item of clothing they're wearing. Sasheer and Ewa were recent favorites. I think the feature helps me connect, in some small, but not insignificant way, with some of the thousands of seemingly faceless people whom I type or stereotype, consciously or unconsciously, as we whiz by each other every day.

I also like Jamie Bufalino's Get Naked sex and dating advice column: not because Jamie is a snarky smartass (he is), but because he is a mensch. People write him with all sorts of questions and problems and situations, mundane and out there, and he usually responds in a way that encourages them to feel okay about being themselves. He's not always right, and when he's not his readers let him know and he cops to having been wrong. And he'll also calls "Bullshit" when a reader is being a jerk, conning themselves, or especially when they're conning a partner. I suppose he's often compared to Dan Savage. His advice to Monochrome Guy in a Technicolor World and Hot Flash Guy piqued my interest. Check him out and see what you think.
|

Medieval Times (by res ipsa loquitur) 

Continuing to make my way through I Don't ...

Between the eras of Saints Paul and Augustine, men and women were apparently thought to lust after each other in equal measure. Marriage was seen by church fathers as what author Susan Squire calls a "lust containment facility". Best of all was to be an unmarried man, who would presumably devote his life to the lord. (No word on what status was accorded unmarried women, but I suspect it was the convent or worse.) Second best was to be part of a "spiritual" (read: sexless) marriage, wherein both husband and wife devote themselves to prayer. Less good was a marriage with sex on the menu, with mitigation if such sex was solely for procreative purposes. "Immoderate intercourse" (i.e., sex for fun) in marriage was a disaster, but fornication without marriage was the worst of all worlds. Through it all, various and sundry popes, bishops (arch and otherwise), and priests proscribe all sorts of rules and regs designed to do everything from exhaust (the more energy you devote to deciphering rules, the less you'll devote to pleasure) to punish (periods of self-starvation were often part of penance) would-be pleasure seekers. Example: no sex on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, "during menstruation, pregnancy, 33 days postpartum (for a boy) or 56 (for a girl), and 50 days each before Christmas and Easter."

Then the dark and middle ages hit, and something happens to the church's (and society's) view of equal opportunity lust. Specifically, women become raving nymphomaniacs and men become cuckolds. The author describes all sorts of stories, tales, and fables that feature men who accuse women of wanting them only for their bodies and sexual prowess and over whom the threat of impotence is a perpetually gathering storm. In many stories, women are tested. In one, a man says, "If I had lost my prick ... / You'd never love me". The woman protests. But then, often as part of some elaborate scheme, she's tempted by another man or told that her husband has lost his ability to use said prick to maximum (or any) effectiveness. The result? Overcome by desire, she strays and/or throws her husband over. She always fails the test.

My question is, "Why?" No, not, "Why does she always fail the test?" (that I know) but rather, why was she suddenly being tested in the first place? Why did the view of sexual desire morph during this period? Why were men and women once thought equal-opportunity offenders when it came to lust, but then suddenly, women were Public Enemy No. 1? Why was the woman of this era thought insatiable? And has there been a parallel shift since? At first, that section of the book made me think of the femmes fatales of film noir, of sexy powerhouses like Barbara Stanwyck and Mary Astor leading their men down the road to ruin in "Double Indemnity" and "The Maltese Falcon". Their primary motivation was money, but they put the men around them at similar unease. Is the war the modern analog to the dark and middle ages? Were both a period in which men had to reinvent their place in the world and did the attendant anxiety of that process cause an explosion of "She Done Him Wrong!" type tales?

Thoughts?
|

The Ministry of Truth Vetted My Library Book (by res ipsa loquitur) 

When I mentioned that I am reading I Don't: A Contrarian History of Marriage, I neglected to say that I discovered something astonishing about this book -- well, about the copy I got from the library, anyway -- before I'd read even a few pages.

Someone -- a previous borrorower, I assume, and not someone at the library, I pray -- "edited" the library's copy. It was as though somewhere, some little true believer at the Ministry of Truth had pored over I Don't and "corrected" it to conform to some Wingnuttia Manual of Style. A few examples:

  • The author uses "Before the Common Era" and "Common Era" in place of "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" respectively, because "Jewish tradition and current standards of political correctness" require the use of religiously neutral terms. (We'll table the author's capitulation to the wingnut trope of "political correctness".) So throughout the book, our little propagandist has blacked out the "E" in "BCE" and blacked out "AD" and substituted it with "BC". Even the footnotes have been edited! That's a lot of work in a book of history.
  • All references to god that rely on a personal pronoun have been capitalized, i.e., "he" to "He".
  • Lots of ominous underlining of passages, for example:
"Suppose you allow [women] to acquire or extort one right after another, and in the end to achieve complete equality with men, do you think that you will find them bearable? Nonsense. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters."
(That's Cato, by the way.) And this:
Through it all, Augustus proselytizes "family values" as tirelessly as any Republican politician in America today, with the same old goal in mind: to encourage reproduction.

What with the BCE/BC and god stuff, above, I assume the vandal is nodding in agreement with the first passage and tsk-tsking the author's "liberal bias" with regard to the second.
  • To be fair, our editor has also marked actual non-controversial typographical errors, of which there are several.
All of this editing was done in ink, which is a bummer, because I could easily have been as obsessive and thorough in erasing the "corrections" as the editor had been in making them. So because this editorializing irritated me, last night I bought a new copy of the book and will return that unmolested one to the library on the due date.

Take that, Wingnut!

(Who defaces library books? Sheesh.)
|

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

An out of order introduction (by Prometheus 6) 

Hi. I'm Earl Dunovant...never mind the brand name in the title, everyone who reads my site knows who I am. I don't expect you good folk to know me, though, so though my first post was promised for Monday I thought I'd bust in and give you a handle by which to grasp whatever it is I wind up doing.

No, I am not at all clear what I will be writing for you at this point. I'm not a feminist, though I tend to fall on what you'd consider the correct side of things by being honest. I'm a Black partisan with a particular lens on history and current events. Part of my intent is to make the world I see through that lens understandable; that requires me to understand at least the framework in which folks are operating. Having never operated in a feminist framework, I would get the most personal value out of getting to understand what you all think that framework is. For that, though, I would probably do better reading around the site than trying to inspire some conversation that will reveal all.

So I'm going to do that for the rest of the week. What would help is if folks could drop a couple of links to the fundamentals into the comments. Also, it you got topics you think a Black partisan, conscious but otherwise fairly typical guy ought to address, I'd like to know about them, too.

Thanks.
|

Gender & Gates’ arrest (by Suzie) 



Tomorrow, Obama is scheduled to have a beer at the White House with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the man who arrested him, Sgt. James Crowley. It strikes me as a quintessentially masculine gesture that would be hard to imagine if one of the three were female.

I'm not saying Obama shouldn't do this. But I want to tease out the role of masculinity in this "teachable moment."

Because men commit crimes disproportionately, many people practice gender profiling. In other words, they are more suspicious of men than women in regard to crime. If I’m walking at night, for example, I worry less if a woman is walking behind me than if a man is.

Thus, it’s not surprising that a woman called the police when she saw two men forcing their way into a home. The woman says she didn’t describe them as black. Although she has been described as white, her lawyer says she has “olive-colored skin and is of Portuguese descent." Apparently, this matters because people have suggested she's racist.

Gates doesn’t blame her for calling the police, however.
I would want the police to come. What I would not want is to be presumed to be guilty. That's what the deal was. It didn't matter how I was dressed. It didn't matter how I talked. It didn't matter how I comported myself. That man [Crowley] was convinced that I was guilty.
Perhaps Gates was suggesting that it doesn't matter how successful a black man becomes in America; he's still subject to racism. I hope he wasn’t suggesting that police should profile people based on class markers, such as how they dress and talk.

When a man of means faces discrimination, the insult to his manhood is greater. Thus, some articles on Gates’ arrest are written as if it’s worse that it happened to a well-to-do black man as opposed to a poor one. (The reverse seems to be true for white women, in which class privilege seems to mitigate sexism.)

In our society, when a man attacks another man, the victim is supposed to strike back in order to preserve his dignity as a man. Gates said he was treated badly and then arrested because of his race. Perhaps Crowley felt he was not getting the respect due a police officer, or that he was being maligned as a racist. I’m not saying that justified his arrest of Gates; I’m noting that hitting back is a time-honored part of masculinity.

Gates said he wasn’t causing a disturbance; Crowley said he was. When a woman yells, she may be seen as “hysterical” or low class. Depending on her color, she may be seen as trashy, too angry, hot-blooded, etc. But a man is standing his ground.

Crowley reported that Gates said, "I'll speak with your mama outside." Gates denies this, but if it’s true, it would be a sexist comment, part of the tradition in which men fight men over the bodies of women.

Gates is concerned with the way the criminal justice system treats men. “How many black and brown men and poor white men are the victims of police officers who are carrying racist thoughts?" This quote is interesting in its conflation of race and class, but I understand: In poor neighborhoods, plenty of people (including whites) see the criminal justice system as their tormentor, not their protector. As an older sister used to chide me: "The system is not your friend." I've given lectures similar to this one to my nephews.

If there is to be a national dialogue on the criminal justice system, let’s examine the role that masculinity plays. And let us not forget how women fare.
|

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Greek Life (by res ipsa loquitur) 

Hello, and thank you, Echidne, for the welcome and the opportunity to contribute to your blog. While you're gone, I'll be reading (among other things).

What will I read? Well, right now: this. Toting around I Don't has provoked some interesting reactions. Examples: Today I had my annual mammogram, and the radiologist, une femme d' un certain age who somehow managed to charm me while she painfully smushed my breasts between two super-thick pieces of plastic, laughed uproariously when she saw it sticking out of my bag. "Don't get married, dear heart! I was married! You're much better off on your own. Did I tell you I'm going gambling this weekend?" Then there's my cousin, who saw it when I met her for sushi one evening and said, "What the hell do you mean, 'I Don't'? What if your mother had said, 'I Don't?' You always overthink everything!" Finally there's my SO, a fine gentleman (and feminist) who glanced at the cover, raised one eyebrow, and said, "Interesting artwork. So who messed up this institution? It had to be the Christians, right?" Well, honey, it was flawed from the get-go, but the Christians certainly did their part!

In any case, about halfway through the book, my initial thought is this: the Greeks had it all figured out. Well, not Greek women, but the Greek men, who set up a seemingly perfect closed system to serve their need for care, companionship, and carnality. Your basic Greek guy -- no, not slaves, I'm talking Greek men of privilege -- had at least three women in his life:
  1. Gynaekes (wives) to keep the home fires burning, bear and raise children
  2. Hetaerae (courtesans) to stimulate mind and body. Educated, cultured, talented, beautiful: their conversation was sought, their opinions valued, their talents appreciated -- but they were still tossed when they lost their looks.
  3. Pallakae (prostitutes) to sate one's day-to-day lust.
Excellent system (if you were a privileged guy) -- and one I'd like to try myself -- if I could be sure it wouldn't get me thrown in jail, exiled to St. Helena, or burnt at the stake.

But it also occurs to me that modern wives -- American ones, anyway -- are expected to possess the characteristics of all three classes of Greek companions -- and that that's way too much pressure for any one woman. A wife is supposed to make a home, maintain her own career or interests so that she can talk about something other than that home she's worked so hard to make, and be a vixen in the sack. (To be fair, modern husbands don't get off easily, either. You've got to simultaneously be SuperProvider, SuperDad, and SuperStud.) But back to those Greek guys ... well, the knee-jerk reaction is, "Sexists! How dare they be so piggy and so self-centered!" But then I think, "Wait. Maybe they were onto something, specifically, that being all three things simultaneously was going to be extraordinarily difficult."

So how did we go from isolating these functions into three separate roles to combining them into one single superwoman (or superman, as the case may be)? (Hint: Martin Luther is partly responsible) And does anyone really buy into the idea that a spouse -- female or male -- can or must even be all three? Or is such belief the provenance of the young and naive spouse? Is two out of three so bad? If so, which two? Would one out of three make a marriage?

I have questions. Do you have answers? Put 'em in comments.
|

The New Ms. Magazine Is Out 



From my e-mail:

Top stories in the Summer Ms.:

-COVER STORY - "CYBERHOOD IS POWERFUL"- Ms. pays tribute to feminist mommybloggers and the online movement for mother's rights. Can they make the U.S. finally pay attention to demands for better work/life policy?

-EXCLUSIVE: "BAGHDAD UNDERGROUND" - Rape and violence against women are so prevalent in today's war-torn Iraq that local women's rights groups have started an "underground railroad" of shelters to save victims. Investigative journalist Anna Badhken was the first U.S. reporter allowed access to the hidden shelters; read her findings in a Ms. special report.

-"A MAN WHO TRUSTED WOMEN": Ms. magazine Senior Editor Michele Kort spoke extensively with those close to Dr. Tiller to create an intimate portrait of the murdered abortion doctor.

-"WHAT A DIFFERENCE A LATINA MAKES" Contrary to MSM reports, Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment was based in solid research: there are cases in which justices' race and gender do matter. And therefore it's especially troubling that the lack of judicial diversity goes much further than the Supreme Court.
READ ONLINE EXCERPT

-"STONES CAN'T STOP THEM": Coverage of Afghan women often neglects to credit the hardworking women's rights movement there. The new Ms. covers Afghan feminists' victory in fighting the recent repressive Sharia law passed by Karzai. A revised version of the law was proposed July 9 --though Afghan women's rights activists are still demanding better.

Subscribing to feminist magazines is one of those things I do as a political act, by the way. It's not a bad thing to spend money on if you can afford it.

|

Vacation For Me 






Starts today. I'm going to be gone for four weeks, exactly, give or take a few posts each week. In the meantime, you will be well cared for by Suzie, Xan, Liz, Prometheus6, res ipsa loquitur, Hecate and ProfWombat.

My warmest thanks for all these great writers and thinkers. I'm so pleased to have them help me out so that I can sun my scales and replenish my creative reservoirs.

I shall miss you all, sniff, until I come back.
----
Picture of Widget and Sasha by Doug.



|

Monday, July 27, 2009

The Great Murkan Marriage!!!! 



I'm listening to this program on the local public radio. It's all about whether marriage is dying or not, whether it should or not and so on. The two women discussing it are my personal favorite female misogynist Caitlyn Flanagan and a comedian called Sandra Tsing Loh. Both of these women have written essays on marriage, and their views are presented as opposite ones and the listeners are asked to take sides! Sandra Tsing Loh thinks that marriage is no good for women (but she'd like to have a 1950s type husband who wouldn't know how to boil water) and Caitlyn Flanagan thinks everything wrong about marriage is up to women, men don't even exist as the objects of the women's choices).

Fuck it. I'm going to have a debate here between two people, one of whom thinks that broccoli is an alien from outer space and the other thinks that broccoli is a cancer on earth. You must take sides.

I hate badly framed debates. I also hate the kind of setup where neither of the so-called experts actually appears to know much about the history of marriage in general or how long the average marriage used to last (hint: not that long in many cases as mortality rates were rather different).

OK. My wrath is probably misplaced, because what's being said isn't that extreme. I just hate the idea that real information is not provided. For instance, Flanagan keeps on talking about the poor not marrying as if being poor isn't part of the reason for that. And then there's the final caller to the show who argues that men are looking for Mom2.0 in their wives and that women are looking for a better mother than theirs was in their husbands!!!! Notice how fathers just disappeared there altogether.



|

May I Just Say 



That all the attention paid to the "birther movement" of the wingnuts is not only silly but very boring. I understand the rules of the game, and I also understand that if Obama's citizenship status wasn't attacked then something else would be. But surely the journalists don't have to cooperate. Or the bloggers.

If life is too short to stuff a mushroom (which it is), it is also too short for all this crap.

|

Poetry Club: An Interview With Katha Pollitt 



You probably know Katha Pollitt best for her often-humorous but always-wonderful political columns in the Nation magazine or the collections of those columns. But she is also a poet, and has recently published a new book of poetry: The Mind-Body Problem (Random House 2009). She has kindly agreed to talk about her book here. She will even answer further questions which you can put into the comments!


Here are Katha's answers (marked by KP) to my six questions about her latest book and her poems in general:



1. Which poets have most influenced you as a poet? Which new poets do you find most interesting and why?



KP: My favorite living poet has to be Wyslawa Symborska, the Polish Nobel Prize-winner. I love her irony, her wit, the way she brings the grand sweep of history down to the smallest moment. I long to be influenced by her! I should be so lucky.

Other living poets I admire --Sharon Olds, Charlie Simic, Robert Pinsky, Marilyn Hacker, who has done so much to revitalize formal poetry and give it some zing. Right now I'm reading Brenda Shaughnessy's Human Dark with Sugar, which is wild and funny and extravagant and sexy.



Do you write poetry 'from a different place' inside you than prose?


KP: As I was writing the poems, I didn't see them as all that political. I kept that voice for my columns. But of course there are plenty of poems in the book that are political in a broad sense, and there's even a topical one: 'Trying to Write a Poem against the War,' which I wrote for the Poets Against the War anthology edited by Sam Hamill. 'Rapture' is another -- it's about the Christian fundamentalists who believe their going to be taken up bodily into heaven any day now, while the rest of us suffer all kinds of awful things here below. In my poem, their heaven is a kind of old-fashioned sea side resort, rather boring. All the action is down on earth.



2. Kay Ryan says about the book: "It's awfully good to have such a great-hearted poet as Katha Pollitt take on mortality's darkest themes. Again and again she finds a human-sized crack of light and squeezes us through with her." Do you agree with this assessment of the darkest themes? I'm asking because I found the book ultimately an optimistic one, ending with 'Lunaria,' in which you write of your desire to be "A paper lantern/lit within/and shining in/the fallen leaves."



KP: I try to give both light and dark, the bittersweet. I love to make a kind of shimmering between major and minor keys, sorrow and joy, loss and acceptance. Humor can do that -- if you say a sad thing in a funny or ironic way, you're complicating it, changing the frame. So in 'Collectibles' I write about the illusion of childhood happiness, which is very sad, but I do it through a description of finding in a flea market kitschy, funny items that used to be in my parents' kitchen: I give the memory and destroy the memory at the same time. ' Lunaria' is about the three phases of the plant of that name, also called Honesty or Money Plant, which has purple flowers in spring, green discs in summer, and, in autumn, silvery seedpods, which are very beautiful and translucent. It's my Three Ages of Woman poem. Not that I have reached the silvery seedpod stage quite yet!



3. Would you call yourself an urban poet? A Brooklyn poet (as one reviewer states)?


KP: I would be honored to be thought of as a Brooklyn poet. I grew up in Brooklyn and, in fact, my mother was born there, which makes me a Brooklynite of considerable ancestry. I've lived in New York City for most of my life. My landscape and people-scape is definitely urban. I'm not that interested in "nature poetry" or nature writing. I mean I'm all for nature! I just don't want to read about it much. When I write about the natural world, I'm really using nature as a metaphor, as in 'Lilacs in September': the hurricane-struck lilac producing out of season flowers is a kind of challenge to the reader (and the writer): 'what will unleash/itself in you/when your storm comes?'



4. Section II of the book is called After the Bible, with poems drawn from both Old and New Testaments: Adam and Eve, Lot's wife, Martha and Mary ("Well did he think the food would cook itself?/Naturally he preferred the sexy one,/the one who leaned forward with velvet eyes and asked/ clever questions that showed she'd done the reading"). How do these themes fit into your view of the world? Who are you speaking to in these poems?



KP: I'm not a believer -- far from it. The Bible is interesting to me because the stories are so strange and ambiguous and have so many odd gaps and because they deal with deep questions . I try to retell the stories with a twist of my own. In 'the Expulsion,' everyone, even God, is glad that Adam and Eve are leaving Eden-- in other words, beginning their real human lives of struggle, and choice, and conflict and creation. In 'Cities of the Plain,' God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah but then he misses them, because what's a moralist without a sinner? In 'Martha,' the speaker (the patron saint of housewives, by the way) is angry and depressed and resentful: she does the cooking and cleaning, and somebody has to do that, but Jesus tells her she should by like her sister and just listen to his words of wisdom. Not helpful!


5. The Poet As A Feminist. Your ideas about how feminism affects your poetry or not? "As girls they were awkward and peculiar,/wept in church or refused to go at all." How does this link to the Biblical theme?


KP: There are a number of poems in the book about the unfreedom of women. The poem you quote, "Lives of the 19th Century Poetesses," uses that horrible word "poetess" to emphasize the restrictions under which women, including gifted women writers, have labored-- the entrapment within the family, the confined life leading to eccentricity and even madness, or what is seen by others as madness, the marginalization and fundamental lack of respect. Lot's wife is a version of this woman -- she's "trudging behind the broad backside of God," away from Sodom with her awful husband, feverishly remembering an intense affair that ended badly. There is no place for her in the new life God is arranging for her supposedly oh-so-virtuous family, so she has to turn into a pillar of salt.

Any woman writer has some kind of relation to feminism, even if it's conflicted, because feminism is what lets them write at all, and to be published and taken seriously as artists. Without some kind of feminist consciousness-- or maybe I should say feminist unconsciousness --it would not be possible for a woman to write her own truth. Sylvia Plath, Adrienne Rich, Anne Sexton, Muriel Rukeyser and a host of other women poets of the 1950s, 60s and 70s, changed the whole landscape of poetry for women. Suddenly, things that could not be said were speakable.


6. 'The Heron in the Marsh' is my favorite in the book, both because of its formal beauty and because it seems to condense that looking at the dark themes of life and yet coming to a resolution which is positive. Would you say that this poem is a microcosm of the message of the book? (The poem is reproduced here with Ms. Pollitt's permission.)


The Heron in the Marsh


At the end of summer
stands white and alone
a question mark


among the green reeds
that glow even as they fail.
Wanderer, lordless
samurai


with only yourself for armor,
tell me, why is loss real
even when love was not?
The tide seeps in,


the dark sand shines.
You lift your strong wings
and skim away
over the gray


and glittering
open water.




KP: It's interesting that you see the end of poem as hopeful. I see it as ambiguous: the poet asks "why is loss real/ even when love was not?" and instead of responding, the heron takes flight and skims away over " the gray/ and glittering/ open water." No answer there!

In a way, that poem does encapsulate the theme of the book, if it has a theme, which is the conflict or gap or lack of connection between our ideas, hopes, fears, and emotions about the world and, well, the world. That's what the mind-body problem is: the search for that connection. Religion is one way of trying to bridge that gap, trying to make coherent meaning out of what's within us and what's out there. Love is another, especially unrequited love. The attempt to make meaning out of essentially meaningless experience is what being human is all about.

|

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Five Women, Five Accordions 



I find this hilarious. The song is in Finnish, but here's a rough translation of the first few verses:

The mouths of girls have long watered for me
but my mama taught me to avoid women -
they are wild and crazy.

The girls grab on to me like burrs
because I've got that which entrances women
but I shall take care that
I die as a bachelor.

Everybody wondered over that
How weird, they said
But I said "I have other things to finger"
(refrain)
even when she comes to sit by my side [strictly: quickly collapses next to me].

The girls have often tried to hook me
but I have never taken the bait
A woman might be like fresh-baked bread
but I have the will-power of a man.

And I'm not lured by silks or nylons,
rouges, lipsticks or powder.
If you fall for those at night
you will feel rotten in the morning.

This boy will never finger a woman
An accordion is enough for my fingers
(refrain)
Even when she comes to sit by my side.





|

Bad television (by Liz) 

Sometimes media consumption can really get me down. Last week was one of those weeks. There was the focus on surgeon general nominee Dr. Regina Benjamin's size. There was the peephole video of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews. There was the character assassination of the woman who accused an NFL star of rape. And then, I heard about Fox's new reality show "More to Love."

Most so-called reality shows are pretty awful to begin with, but this one seems especially awful. I have not seen an episode, nor do I plan to. The marketing alone is bothering me. The premise, according to Fox Broadcasting, is one "regular guy's" search for love among a group of "full-figured women", a "brawny prince" searching for a "curvy Cinderella." Ugh. Some of these women will go on their first dates on camera. Ugh ugh. More exploitation. More emotional manipulation. More focus on size as an "issue." Ugh, ugh, ugh.

This fatigued, feminist blogger has had enough. She needs a break and she will get that break tonight watching "Drop Dead Diva" on Lifetime. Yes, this show also focuses on size. But it is not one-dimensional. The premise is this: a thin, model wannabe dies and comes back to life as a plus-sized attorney. Deb, the main character, is not the stereotypical pretty, thin woman. Nor is she the stereotypical larger, smart woman. She is all of that and none of that and everything in between. What makes the show so compelling is Deb experiences life from multiple vantage points. And that, the ability to appreciate more than one point of view, (along with some witty banter and a few fashion references) is precisely what I need at the end of a long week.
|

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Weird twins (by Suzie) 



I'm posting this for Purple Girl, who commented on "resale therapy" yesterday. I wrote this poem about my own "weird twin," Mark, but I wonder if others of you have friends like this.

Reincarnation II

In another life, maybe,
we could not bear separation.
We made a pact.
This part is true: We were born
on the same morning, in the same hospital,
two white roses laid on the altar.
Before we forgot our past,
did we look across the nursery
and smile?
|

Funny Economics 



Fred Barnes calls president Obama the know-nothing-in-chief. Because Obama supposedly doesn't understand economics.

I wouldn't be surprised by that, to be quite honest. Most economists don't really understand economics (says she in a snarky voice while filing her scales sharper). Economics is a very fuzzy science and not in that cuddly way.

But Barnes himself has gaping holes in his grasp of the Dismal Science:

Obama professes to believe in free market economics. But no one expects his policies to reflect the unfettered capitalism of a Milton Friedman. That's too much to ask. Demonstrating a passing acquaintance with free market ideas and how they might be used to fight the recession--that's not too much to ask.

But the president talks as if free market solutions are nonexistent, and in his mind they may be. Three weeks after taking office, he said only government "has the resources to jolt our economy back into life." He hasn't retreated, in words or policies, from that view.

At his press conference, Obama endorsed a surtax on families earning more than $1 million a year to pay for his health care initiative. This is no way to get the country out of a recession. Like them or not, millionaires are the folks whose investments create growth and jobs--which are, after all, exactly what the president is hoping for.

There's that free market animal again. It might come as a surprise to Mr. Barnes, but the concept of 'a free market' is not terribly common in economics. There are unregulated markets, true, and there are what economists call competitive markets.

But an unregulated market is not necessarily a competitive market and truly competitive markets are a little less common in real world than in the conservative religion which worships the Jealous God of something called free markets.

Then there's the idea of the rich people as the ones who give the rest of us jobs and growth, through their investments. But actually those people are called entrepreneurs, not rich people. Some rich people have inherited their wealth and some rich people invest and spend it abroad, not here at home.

Note also how Barnes ignores the demand side of the economy altogether. The entrepreneurs are not going to invest if there's no demand for their products and that demand depends on consumers having money. One way to get that money into consumers' paws is through government projects.

Barnes goes on the same way, by focusing on some issues and completely ignoring other issues. For example, he bemoans the high U.S. corporate tax rate and argues that it makes U.S.firms uncompetitive, but he fails to point out that the ultimate corporate tax payments in the U.S. are not high when compared to similar countries, because of all the loopholes the U.S. tax laws allow firms to use.

|

This Is Bad (Trigger Warning) 



An eight-year old girl of Liberian origin was gang-raped in Phoenix by four boys also of Liberian origin and not much older than herself. But that's not the only reason this is news:

Lured by promises of chewing gum and raped in a shed by four boys barely older than her, an 8-year-old Liberian girl is now in foster care and living with strangers instead of the family that raised her and brought her to America.

...

Police say the girl's father told a police officer and a Child Protective Services worker that he doesn't want her anymore.

We must stop victim-blaming in all countries of the world. And we really must stop thinking that an eight-year old girl could somehow be responsible for her own gang-rape or that a raped woman or girl brings shame to her family. The shame belong to someone else entirely. Most prominently to all the cultures of the world which view girls as less valuable than boys.

It's not that long ago when much of rape here was regarded as shameful enough for women to hide from the authorities. It still happens, actually.

|

Friday, July 24, 2009

Friday flower blogging (by Suzie) 

I love hibiscus. This was in my garden, when I lived in a house and had a yard.
|

Identity made material (by Suzie) 

The following poem was published by Breath & Shadow: A Journal of Disability Culture and Literature as well as the Liddy Shriver Sarcoma Initiative. I think it relates to the post below. I've always been amused that people think I'm smarter when I'm wearing my glasses.
----------
Reincarnation I

In a complex world,
people see simply.
My identity has changed
as I’ve changed jobs, lovers,
clothes.
I become someone else
by taking off my glasses.
Now I’m a cancer patient,
the rest surgically removed.
|

Resale therapy (by Suzie) 



As a volunteer in the cancer world, I’ve noticed that a lot of newly diagnosed patients feel the urge to give away stuff while others buy everything they ever wanted.

I work primarily with women, and I don’t know if men do this to the same degree as women. My guess is that this behavior is more common in women because women been attached to giving and shopping historically. In the West, for example, it often has been the job of women to remember gifts at holidays as well as to do the household shopping.

Women who give away stuff may see less value in material things as they value other aspects of their life more. Or, they may think the cancer will kill them, and they’d prefer to distribute their stuff to particular people while they still can. This may have to do with the desire to be remembered.

Those who indulge in “retail therapy” may feel like they have sacrificed enough. Or, they may want to enjoy what little time they have left. Shopping can be like hoarding for a rainy day.

I did the former when I was diagnosed. One motivation was: I had settled the estates of my grandparents and parents, and I wanted to lessen the burden on my executor. One friend was so creeped out that I told her she could return my carnelian necklace if I survived five years. (I’ve survived seven, and I got the necklace back. I forgot how pretty it was.)

In addition to giving away things, I didn’t buy new things. Why get new shoes if I’m going to be in a wheelchair? My mattress was almost 20 years old, but why get a new one if I’m just going to ruin it?

A couple of years ago, I got tired of living like a refugee, on the border between life and death. The shopping spree began. Because I can’t afford retail, I love Shopgoodwill.com (which I wrote about here) and a weekly flea market at a retirement center near my home. The flea market is open only to residents and their guests, and it's staffed by residents, mostly women in their 70s, 80s and 90s, like the witty Hungarian woman who loves cats and the woman who served as a WAVE in World War II. I enjoy them as much as I enjoy getting a Coach purse for $3.

Sometimes I “rescue” things – like the Finn Comfort sandals for $5 that were too small for me -- in hopes of finding them a home. For a friend’s wedding, I got some ridiculously overpriced bowl on her gift registry. As a personal gift, however, I gave her a Wedgwood bowl I bought for 50 cents because we had talked about how Wedgwood helped fund abolition activities.

Although I watched Absolutely Fabulous, I still didn’t know much about labels until I became a resale queen. I’m intrigued by the markup – how something can cost more than $100 at the mall, but I can get it NWT (that would be “new with tags” for you amateurs) for a few dollars.

Environmentally, I could never justify buying all this stuff new. But I’m happy to recycle it into my closet. A vegetarian, I stopped buying leather a while ago, but now, I’ve bought leather shoes and purses because I figure I’m not adding to the demand. (Phila, come out of hiding and chastise me, if you’d like.) Ditto for the black-pearl necklace.

As medical science takes me, organ by organ, new clothes help my body image. The ideal would be to love my body the way it is. In the meantime, some fantastic outfits have helped.

I know this sounds overblown, but this buying feels like a celebration of life. I’m enjoying the bounty of beautiful things and thinking I might live a while. Even if I don’t, I’ll go out in style.
---------------
Please talk among yourselves. Today, I should be driving back from Atlanta, where I went to see still more oncologists and urologists. While I was gone, I hope I won the Farscape action figures on the Shopgoodwill auction.
|

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Some Thursday Fun 



Sasha snoozing:





Picture by Doug


And then some Laura Nyro, bless her.




|

Thought For The Day 




The whole New York Post's "Erin Andrews and Peeping Toms" article is really about who has the right to see women naked and whether the women themselves have any say in that.

The Post pretends to be shocked (shocked!) by the idea that someone took pictures of Ms. Andrews without her permission or knowledge and then put them up on the Internet. So shocking is all this that the Post must also print some of the pictures from the video, probably in order to let the rest of us Peeping Toms be equally shocked.

|

Writing From The Heart. What Heart? 



Hard to do. Sometimes I grind my teeth to powder just to be able to type those keys calmly and logically. Sometimes I want to tear my clothes and scatter ashes on my head and then dance the dance macabre. Sometimes I want to sleep a century or two.

Not even goddesses can survive all that emotion. Hence the need to type as if I'm a robot, as if my skull contains nothing but graduate level textbooks, as if none of all this shit ultimately matters. Hence the need to look over those schoolmarm glasses ohso innocently, to pretend that one is leading a class in simple recital. Cool. Dry. Collected. And never, never, lose your temper.


That's what I wrote the other day when I tried to post something on how to strike the right balance between information and fire in blogging. Not quite the thing, obviously, but it was one of those days. We all have them, the days when we feel that all our effort is like drops of water trying to melt down Mount Everest.

But let's be more general: What is blogging for? Is it to provide information, to have a debate, to share in some human experience, to fight to death? How much emotion should be revealed, hinted at, ridiculed? What makes the energy that we toss back and forth here meaningful, human, alive? What opens eyes and ears and hearts? There must be balance of some kind, but not the arbitrary silliness of the mainstream media. Dancing only for the god of the dark moon is not balance.

Neither is being the first horsewoman of the Apocalypse. (Which brings me right back to the invisibility of women, hah, even in our myth-making.)

|

On The Roethlisberger Case 



Ben Roethlisberger has been accused of rape. The case itself is something I cannot comment on yet, but it's worth pointing out that the media is not quite sure what to write about the rumors, so they asked ten sports reporters (all men) about their opinions on that. Well, sports reporters are mostly men, but the case is not about sports but about a sports celebrity.

As I pointed out, the actual case remains for the courts to decide. But in general a celebrity culture is unlikely to treat the two sides in cases like this equally.

|

Wifebeater 






That's a name for a sleeveless t-shirt. I guess the idea is that it's worn by guys who beat their wives. Or looks like something that could be worn by guys who beat their wives. There's even something called a "shooter shirt," a sleeveless t-shirt with large armholes. According to the Wikipedia the name comes from the American South and the shirt is worn mostly by men as the large armholes could make women's breasts suddenly pop out.

So I'm wondering what a husband-beater would look like. Or a child fucker t-shirt. Or a murderer t-shirt. Note that what we accept and what we don't accept tells us lots about the culture we live in. Also makes feminazis humorless bitches.

Sigh. This is what I write when I should have my talons sharply on the day's hawt news items.

|

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Reaching For The Moon 



The Apostate discusses a post by Paul Campos about the fortieth anniversary of the first moon landing and the lack of women in the program. Here's Paul:

(2) Considered as an incredibly expensive and complex exercise in practical engineering, the Apollo program was indeed a stunning achievement. In many ways it was a paradigmatically American achievement, and specifically of American men, or rather boys as men (think of the most impressive neighborhood treehouse, times ten million). Aside from putting the Russians in their place, the most important motivation was probably the sheer desire to figure out how to actually make the thing work. And it was an intensely and peculiarly male project: I don't recall ever seeing a single woman in that huge Houston control center, where hundreds of guys in short-sleeved white shirts and crewcuts ran the show.

One measure of how much has changed in the last 40 years is that the very idea of a woman astronaut in the 1960s would have seemed outlandish to most Americans (that the Russians had a female cosmonaut was widely interpreted as a preposterous publicity stunt).

He later added an explanation to his post:

Update: In response to a couple of comments, I would have thought it obvious from my remarks about how much has changed in regard to things like gender roles and being an astronaut that I wasn't ascribing the intensely male atmosphere of the Apollo project to biology, as opposed to say sexist assumptions about men's and women's work.

But the absence of women astronauts in the program has a much more concrete reason: They were excluded from it. Books have been written about that: Margaret A. Weitekamp's Right Stuff, Wrong Sex and Stephanie Nolen's Promised The Moon.

And there were women involved with the project itself as described by Robyn C. Friend in The Women of Apollo. You can hear one of the original engineers, Ann Dixon, speak about her experiences here:





I'm not sure why women's history appears to evaporate the way it does.
----
Note that I'm not arguing here that women were common in the Apollo program. But there are all sorts of reasons for that.

|

Today's Short Economics Post 



From the Wall Street Journal:

Executives and other highly compensated employees now receive more than one-third of all pay in the U.S., according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of Social Security Administration data -- without counting billions of dollars more in pay that remains off federal radar screens that measure wages and salaries.

I'm sure that executives and other highly compensated employees are a very tiny percentage of all wage-earners.

|

Meanwhile, in Cincinnati 



No, a cockroach has not eaten Cincinnati. Instead:

State legislation introduced this month by Rep. John Adams of Shelby County, and co-sponsored by five Cincinnati-area Republicans, would require women to get a father's written consent before having an abortion in Ohio.

The 'father' in the quote is not the woman's father. That's what I thought they meant at first. It's the man who made the woman pregnant. His permission would be needed unless the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest or caused risk to her life or health. The proposal seems to directly violate the right to privacy argument of Roe v. Wade.

Wild stuff. Smells of patriarchy more than the insides of an old dirty bowler hat. If you don't get the man's permission you have engaged in 'abortion fraud!'

The proposal doesn't seem to be an anti-abortion 'pro-life' bill as much as a men's reproductive rights bill.

|

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

You Are Old, Father William 



That's from a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll. The rest of the first verse goes like this:

'You are old, Father William', the young man said,
'And your hair has become very white;
And yet you incessantly stand on your head --
Do you think, at your age, it is right?'

I like it, because it's an excellent definition of ageism. Note the young man's assumption that someone with white hair shouldn't stand on his head any longer. Just because.

Ageism is different for men and women, on average. For instance, women are affected at younger ages than men. The U.K. Mirror has done some counting of the ages of various television presenters there, and came up with these findings:

We analysed a week's worth of programmes on the main five terrestrial channels and found the average age gap between male and female presenters is six years.

But on Channel 4 the average female presenter is 10 years younger than the average male.

The biggest gap on a single day is tonight on ITV1, where male presenters have an average age of 60, compared to 27 for the women.

AOn BBC2 on Monday, the gap was 18 years. And there is no day this week when the average age of female presenters is higher than their male colleagues.

Our findings come after Strictly Come Dancing was plunged into an ageism storm when judge Arlene Phillips, 66, was replaced with 30-year-old Alesha Dixon, while colleague Len Goodman, 65, survived.

Equality minister Harriet Harman hit out at Arlene's axing this week, saying: "I am suspicious there is age discrimination there."

Selina Scott, 57, won a landmark £250,000 out-of-court settlement and an apology in an age-discrimination suit against Five last December when they went back on a deal for her to cover Natasha Kaplinsky during maternity leave.

They opted for Isla Traquair, 28, and Matt Barbet, then 32, instead.

She said: "Companies want to employ only young people, so ageism has gone underground. It has become institutionalised and it is pervasive.

The Mirror investigation is not a proper study of ageist sexism or sexist ageism in the British television industry. (Such a study would look at a much wider group of occupations, including those behind the cameras, and it would control for all sorts of theoretically valid reasons why women might be younger in that industry.) But it's suggestive, and also suggests that we might want to inquire why all the women pundits on Fox News look to be in their twenties and in the Barbie mold, whereas the male pundits range from moderately good-looking to pretty ghastly.

OK. I put on the eyeglasses of someone who cares about the physical appeal of pundits there for a moment, to point out that we heterosexual women never get much eye-candy and are not expected to want it, either, and now I take them off, to speak about why this really matters:

It's because women in that industry will never reach the lifetime earnings of men in the same industry if they are forced out at much younger ages, and it's because the only reason for that might very well be looks-based ageism which affects women much earlier. What also matters is the fact that this kind of sexist ageism is semi-condoned and even expected by the watching public.

It also matters because the real world and the television world don't look at all the same in terms of age distributions. We all know many people over fifty in the real world. They are quite rare in the television world, and older women, in particular, seem to have died off due to some odd plague. Ultimately the television world might start affecting our views of how the world really looks, you know, and then older people walking down the street will come across as either invisible or somehow totally wrong.
----
For an American example having to do with a Fox affiliate, read this.

|

Echidne Loves Jimmy Carter 






Right now, anyway. As elmlish in the comments pointed out, Carter has come out strongly against the misogyny the major religions contain. His piece for the U.K. Guardian's "Comment Is Free" says this:

So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when th e convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths.

Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.

At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

YESS! *Gives herself a high-five*

I have always said that religion is one of the pillars on which misogyny rests (the others being law and pseudo-science), and that is a truly awful thing. Because either some divine power is a sadistic one or the people who have interpreted the will of that divine power were far too often misogynists. And what are the poor women to do? If they demand their rights they go straight to hell, you know. Sigh.

Besides, for some odd reason all the major religions were created a long time ago and allowing women very few rights didn't seem that odd then, given that the Bible, for instance, urges slaves to obey their owners and such. But we have moved on from the idea that slavery is A-OK. So we could move on from the idea that women are fields for the men to plough as they will and that women should shut up in the congregation and wait until getting home to meekly ask for clarification from their much-wiser husbands. Assuming, of course, that they are let into the houses of worship at all.

|

Monday, July 20, 2009

Which Is It, Hon? 



When conservatives and health insurance lobbyists talk against even the idea of a public option in health insurance they come up with funny stuff like this (from a few days ago):

In the Ways and Means session, Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, who offered the amendment to kill the government plan, said it would have unfair advantages over private insurers.

"It is impossible for the private sector to compete fairly with government, with all its muscle and all its tools," Mr. Ryan said. He predicted that many employers who now provided health benefits would "dump their employees into the public plan."

Under the bill, the government plan would initially pay health care providers at rates pegged to Medicare rates, which are on average lower than what private insurers pay. Some Democrats joined Republicans in objecting to this provision.

Mr. Pomeroy said: "I have a serious problem with the public plan in this bill because it's based on Medicare rates."

Why do I call it funny? Because the usual conservative argument against government provision of anything but dead people of other nationalities is that the government is too inefficient! Now suddenly it's too efficient! Butbut... I thought it was the markets which were efficient! My poor head hurts.

It would be possible to take that argument about the unfair advantages of the government and to transfer it to those markets where the larger firms have all sorts of 'unfair' advantages: economies of scale, the ability to get quantity discounts from their suppliers and so on. But I've never read a conservative critique of that (though they may exist, somewhere).

Then Mr. Pomeroy's argument that pegging the public option rates to Medicare reimbursement rates is not fair, because those rates are lower than the private rates. But isn't this reform supposed to be both about getting more people health care coverage AND slowing down the rate of increase in health care costs? If the public option is pegged to current private rates the costs won't be controlled at all and then THAT will show how very inefficient the government is, once again.

It's like a merry-go-round.

|

Gender-Based Persecution And Asylum 



A piece in the Washington Post discusses the problem of women who seek asylum in the United States on the basis gender-based persecution in their home countries:

Rody Alvarado Peña, a victim of brutal domestic violence in her native Guatemala, sought refuge in the United States in 1995. An immigration court judge granted her asylum the next year, but almost 14 years later Rody remains in limbo. She is working in a convent in California and hoping that the Obama administration will finally resolve her case and take steps to protect women who flee their countries to escape certain death from gender-based violence.

The administration recently sent a positive signal about these types of cases, but it needs to do much more. The plight of Alvarado Peña -- an indisputably peaceful woman at risk for deportation -- underscores both the dysfunction in our immigration system and the fact that our nation's promise of mercy and refuge is still applied erratically, even capriciously.

Nobody disputes the facts of this case. At age 16, Alvarado Peña married a career soldier. He raped and beat her with abandon, breaking mirrors over her head, causing a miscarriage by kicking her until she hemorrhaged and viciously beating her until she lost consciousness. With divorce impossible without her husband's consent, and no shelters or supports available, Alvarado Peña fled to the United States.

Initially, she was granted asylum, but because a dispute continues over whether gender-based persecution is a basis for asylum, the Immigration and Naturalization Service appealed the case. A few years later, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation's highest immigration court, denied her asylum. The judges did not dispute what had happened to Alvarado Peña, and they recognized her husband's violence as "deplorable." Still, they found no basis in law to grant Alvarado Peña asylum.

Read the whole article as they say. I'm skating on thin ice here (due to not knowing the field very well), but it's my impression that the problem is how persecution is defined. If it is by the government of a country then the law grants a reason for granting asylum. If it is something the home country of the woman just condones or tolerates in general (say, by having laws against wife-beating on the books but not enforcing them) then there is no basis for political asylum.

I may be wrong about this and welcome more information. And discussion, of course.

|

Tiahrting 



I have no idea how Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R) of Kansas says his last name, but I hear it as one of those embarrassing bodily eruptions. Because of this:

Arguing to restrict the public funding of abortions within the District of Columbia, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kans., suggested on Thursday afternoon that if such "financial incentives" were available some 47 years ago, Barack Obama himself may never have been born.

"If you think of it in human terms, there is a financial incentive that will be put in place, paid for by tax dollars, that will encourage women who are -- single parents, living below the poverty level, to have the opportunity for a free abortion," said Tiahrt. "If you take that scenario and apply it to many of the great minds we have today, who would we have been deprived of? Our president grew up in a similar circumstance."

"If that financial incentive was in place, is it possible that his mother may have taken advantage of it?" Tiahrt asked. "Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court justice, if those circumstances were in place, is it possible that we would be denied his great mind? The opportunity to have tax-funded abortions, a financial incentive, is something that I think most of us want to oppose in America and it's certainly deserves a clean up or down vote."

Note the racism? It's only black men who are mentioned as possible victims of abortion. It's harder to see the sexism, but note that it's only black men who are mentioned by name, except for president Obama's mother, and she is only brought in as someone who might have killed a fetus which would later have developed into a great mind.

You know, that argument has been used before. Usually it's about someone having aborted the person who would have cured cancer. It's never about someone having aborted Hitler, say, or a serial killer of the more common sort.

Then there's the sexism of ignoring the woman making those decisions in the first place. She's an aquarium for the great minds!

Finally, note the classism. The wealthy can afford to snuff out the great minds of the next generation, so we must not allow the poor single-mothers to do the same. Never mind that poor women are not given much help to bring up their children in the first place, and never mind that the Republicans always want to stop those programs which do exist, however good they are (Head Start comes to mind here).

Gah.

|

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Did You Have A Great Weekend? 






Sasha did. All you need is a pillow and some uninterrupted time. Pic by Doug.

|

Is it time for a gender bailout? Posted by Liz 

Perhaps what ails us in the U.S. can't be solved by any amount of financial bailouts. Perhaps what we really need is a gender bailout. Instead of throwing money at our problems, why not women? Both Norway and Spain have mandated gender equity on corporate boards. Should the U.S. government demand the same?

Let’s review the numbers:

Women hold only 15 percent of all board seats in this country.

A new report from the National Council for Research on Women (NCRW) titled "Women in Fund Management" shows women are under-represented in fund management positions. Ten percent of all mutual fund managers are women and only three percent of the trillions of dollars invested in hedge funds are controlled by women.

There are similarly low percentages when you look at the number of female CEOs in the Fortune 500, female partners in law firms, women in newsrooms, women in Congress, etc. etc.

Yet,

Fifty-one percent of the country's population is female.

Women make 85 percent of all consumer purchasing decisions in this country.

Almost half of all workers in the U.S., and one third of all business owners, are women.

Studies continue to demonstrate women are strong assets in business. There is the data from Catalyst that shows companies with the highest number of women in top management experience better financial performance than companies with fewer women at the top. And a little know study from two Boston College professors shows that Wall Street responds more favorably to financial moves made by companies with a female CFO.

So how about a gender bailout? Some might see it as affirmative action. Others might view it as simple equality – half of the population holding half of the power. Or, it might be the kind of decisive leadership we need to help bail us out of our current economic situation.

Labels: , ,

|

Saturday, July 18, 2009

How Our School Texts Are Created 



Funnily enough, they evolve, and mostly in Texas, because the Texas school system is such a big buyer of books and the publishers don't want to make many different versions. So the objections of Texas fundamentalists can affect what many, many American children learn at school. Weird, eh?

Here's a story about some of the stuff that they discuss down in Texas:

The Dallas Morning News reported last week that conservative "experts" advising the state of Texas on school curriculum are arguing that the state's social studies and history textbooks are giving "too much attention" to some of U.S. history's most prominent civil rights leaders. David Barton, one of the so-called "experts," claimed Hispanic labor leader César Chávez "lacks the stature, impact and overall contributions of so many others." A colleague on the panel agreed, also singling out Thurgood Marshall for exclusion:

"To have César Chávez listed next to Ben Franklin" – as in the current standards – "is ludicrous," wrote evangelical minister Peter Marshall, one of six experts advising the state as it develops new curriculum standards for social studies classes and textbooks. [...]

Marshall also questioned whether Thurgood Marshall, who argued the landmark case that resulted in school desegregation and was the first black U.S. Supreme Court justice, should be presented to Texas students as an important historical figure. He wrote that the late justice is "not a strong enough example" of such a figure.

Goddess knows what they do about famous women (probably none of them count as famous) or about gender roles and such.

|

In The Series Of First Women 









These seem worth following. Here's one:

More history was made at the White House on Thursday when President Obama climbed aboard his waiting helicopter: An all-female Marine Corps crew was taking him to Andrews Air Force Base.

It was Maj. Jennifer Grieves' last day in a rotation that made her the first female pilot of Marine One, the presidential helicopter.

To honor her achievement, Thursday's three-person crew was made up of women — another first.

----
The pictures have nothing to do with the topic, though of course Sasha is a female and might be meeting her first teacup. Pictures by Doug.

|

Friday, July 17, 2009

Senate approves hate-crime legislation (by Suzie) 



Gender, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity would be added to hate-crime legislation, under a measure passed yesterday by the Senate. Obama has promised to sign it into law. The act is named after Matthew Shepard.

You can read more here. Just remember that hate-crime statistics generally do not include gender now. I wrote about this in May. You may want to check out that post, plus the excellent comments.

ETA: links I left in comments in May. RAINN discusses rape as a hate crime. Here's a good law review article on why rape should be a hate crime.

In 1999, Sen. Ted Kennedy said rape should be prosecuted as a hate crime only if "gender animus" could be proven (or else it was done because of another bigotry, such as bias against gays). The conservative Concerned Women for America responded that all rape involved hate (although it opposes the classification of "hate crime" for any crime.)

Here are Lexia's comments from May:
Of the 45 states and DC that have hate crime laws, all of them cover race, religion and ethnicity. Only 28 cover gender. Again, more cover sexual orientation - 32. Source data here.
Thurgood Marshall's unworthy successor as lead council for the NAACP, Jack Greenburg, said, "Domestic violence is as American as apple pie, and you just wonder whether the federal courts can handle it." The quote was published in "Legal Times" during the passage of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. Referenced here.
For men of any race, creed, color or sexual orientation, the greater the pervasiveness and degree of violence, the greater the urgency to eliminate it. For women and only for women, the inverse applies: It's too big a problem, so it's insoluble, so help us fight male violence against other men or shut up.
For a brief period from 1995 or so till 2000, rape was classified as at least a civil rights violation against women. In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act was passed after a "mountain of evidence" and years of congressional testimony showed that male violence affects the lives of almost every woman in America.
In 2000, VAWA was eviscerated by the Supreme Court in "U.S. v. Morrison." (Opinion) (Dissent here and here) ... VAWA had been opposed by federal judges from its inception, because women's rights were violated on such a massive scale the judges didn't want that clogging up the courts and keeping them from important business.

The other legal bastion of protection from violence and hate because of the body a person was born into, the 14th amendment, was ruled out for women in Gonzales v. Castle Rock in 2005.
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

This is an old photo of Tom telling Willie to back off; he's tired of Willie's kitten foolishness. It may be hard to see Tom's white paw, bright in the sunlight, reaching out for Willie.
|

Investing in women (by Suzie) 


Investors often do not realize the power they have to move the needle on issues like gender empowerment. Every investor—and most of us are investors, if we have retirement plans—can tell their portfolio manager or plan administrator that they wish to vote their proxies in favor of gender equity, which means voting for shareholder resolutions on diversity disclosure and withholding votes from all-male boards of directors.
This quote comes from Joe Keefe, CEO of Pax World Mutual Funds, at the “Gender Equality as an Investment Concept” seminar in May in Washington, D.C. Pax describes its Women’s Equity Fund as “the only mutual fund in the U.S. whose focus is on investing in companies that invest in women."

When I worked for a newspaper owned by Media General, employees got stock as part of retirement plans. Some of us would add a note each year to our proxy, arguing to put a woman on the board. I don’t know if that helped, but it’s better than doing nothing.
|

Misanthropic men in movies and TV (by Suzie) 



A friend lent me the first season of Showtime’s “Queer as Folk,” which ran from 2000 to 2005, and depicted gay friends in Pittsburgh. Watching it, I understood why porn has gotten more and more extreme. At first, I was amazed by the graphic sex scenes in every episode, and then I grew bored.

The misogyny among the gay men also bothered me. (I’ve written about this before.) Tops (the ones who penetrate anally or receive orally) often are depicted as strong and masculine while the bottoms are associated with the feminine. The tops definitely get more respect. Those who are more stereotypically feminine are subject to more ridicule from other gay men.

My last complaint has to do with the title of this post. The character Brian is a narcissist: a handsome, talented, high-earner who is cold, arrogant and manipulative. His friends Michael and Lindsay love him; the teenager Justin falls in love with him; and others consider him a friend. Brian gets praised when he finally sulks his way into doing something right.

It reminded me of “As Good as It Gets,” where an “obsessive-compulsive, misanthropic bigot” ends up with a beautiful, younger blonde because he finally does right. This is why I can’t get into “House,” where another selfish and arrogant man still wins praise. The anti-heroes of both of these pieces also are sexist, but that just seems part of their rebellious charm to some viewers.

Can you imagine women in any of these roles?
|

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Reading Is Good For You! 






Even if it's an old telephone directory and you really need to taste it. Pic by Doug of Sasha.

I have a special treat in store for you soon, my dear readers. Katha Pollitt has kindly agreed to be interviewed about her new book: The Mind-Body Problem: Poems. And you can ask her questions, too! So all poetry lovers, watch this blog in the next few days.

|

Class Wars, Take 34,567,890 



I've always found it very hilarious that we are supposed to only see class wars when the lower classes fight, because in reality class wars are an ongoing business, and mostly they are waged by the powerful against the rest.

The propaganda is everywhere. For instance, I'm sure you've heard how very hard the rich work and that's why they deserve their incomes. The poor don't work, not at all, and no rich person has ever inherited all that dough.

Then there's the argument that all the societal wealth comes from the rich working so hard. If they decided to 'go Galt' then nobody would have those cushy minimum wage jobs any longer and wouldn't we cry then! So better not try to tax them back into poverty!

Anyone who argues differently is a) a communist, b) a welfare queen and c) just unwilling to pull herself up by those stiletto heels. Something of that sort. Yet none of this is interpreted as another battle in the class wars.

I thought about all this when I read some of the reactions to the new plan to use an extra tax on the high-income people to fund some of the health care changes the Obama administration is working on. Even if that extra tax is very small in percentage figures, those old arguments crop up.

One argument that is less and less founded in reality these days is the one about capitalists being the risk-takers who deserve high incomes because they are always just one misstep away from going bankrupt. The service they provide is supposed to be the carrying of risks in ways which allows for more innovation and more of those cushy jobs for the rest of us.

But the other side of that argument should be that a) workers don't have to carry that same risk and b) that the market is allowed to punish bad entrepreneurs by actually making them face the consequences of poor luck or bad decisions.

Neither of those is what I see happening, rather the reverse. If workers are left with so much of the relative risk from the failing economy and outsourcing via globalization, and if entrepreneurs get golden parachutes and big bonuses, who is it who is carrying the risks here? Hmh?

|

How Old Is Too Old? 



Maria del Carmen Bousada has died at 69, leaving behind three-year old twin boys:

Beginning in 2005, Bousada underwent hormone treatments to reverse nearly 20 years of menopause and sold her house to pay for in vitro fertilization at the Pacific Fertility Clinic in Los Angeles.

Slender with dark brown hair, she told the clinic she was 55 — the facility's maximum age for single women undergoing the procedure. When her sons were born in December 2006, Guinness World Records said she was the oldest woman on record to give birth.

Dr. Vicken Sahakian, director and owner of the clinic, said Bousada falsified her birth date on documents from Spain.

When he learned of the deception, "I figured something might happen and wind up being a disaster for these kids, and unfortunately I was right," he told The Associated Press.

...

There is no U.S. law regulating the age of in vitro candidates, but Sahakian said his clinic won't take older women because "I would like the mother ... to basically survive until the kids reach 18."

...

Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, said the organization recommends that assisted conception generally not be provided to women beyond the natural age of menopause at about 50.

"The rationale ... is that nature didn't design women to have assisted conception beyond the age of the natural menopause, he said. "Once you get into the mid-50s, I think nature is trying to tell us something."

"I think many people would worry about providing fertility treatment to women in their 60s. I think as a general rule, to embark on pregnancy when you may not see your child go to university is potentially a very difficult situation."

So the article tells us that the main reason women shouldn't give birth so very late in life because they might die before the child is fully grown. It's not a bad argument.

Except that we don't use that argument when discussing men who sire children late in life. Take Rupert Murdoch. He had a daughter when he was seventy and another at seventy-two. It's not terribly likely that he will see either of them graduating from college. Yet I haven't seen articles pointing that out.

The argument that women are post-menopausal for a reason might have made a better case than the one this article adopted.



|

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Interesting... 



Pat Buchanan is making it so very obvious that you can say anything at all if you are a conservative dude in this country. For instance:

What they must do is expose Sotomayor, as they did not in the case of Ginsburg, as a political activist whose career bespeaks a lifelong resolve to discriminate against white males to the degree necessary to bring about an equality of rewards in society.


Sonia is, first and foremost, a Latina. She has not hesitated to demand, even in college and law school, ethnic and gender preferences for her own. Her concept of justice is race-based.

Verry interesting. So Pat thinks that justice is a zero-sum game and that in the absence of discrimination against white men they'd be naturally on top everywhere in the society. What with being much smarter and worthier than the rest of us.

I wonder if Pat remembers those times when being black and/or female got you locked out of lots of universities? It's not that long ago, and it certainly helped in making certain that 'white males' are the group from which most of the powerful are drawn. That does not mean that all white males are in power.

But what I found even more interesting is the way the post I linked to discusses Pat's comments: The bit about Justice Ginsburg is simply ignored and the rest of the post talks about race. That Buchanan addressed his barbed comment to women, first, somehow disappeared.

|

Nets Silent on Sexism of Anonymous Quotes Graham Used 



So says Media Matters for America. Perhaps not silent altogether, but it sure is true that sexist assertions are one of those creatures which many pundits can't spot. Is it there or is it not there? How does one earn the reputation of a bully? How many people must call you that? And is there a difference between gals and guys in that? What can a woman do not to be called a bully? And a man?

The standards are different, you know, and because that different standard is still so widely accepted we sorta swim in the sea of sexism without noticing it.




|

You're GEORGEOUS! 



I saw that misspelling recently and immediately thought that it would make a kewl new word (naming is power, after all): Anyone who acts like our previous president is gonna be called georgeous. Not quite sure how to pronounce it, so suggestions are welcome.

|

Today's Deep Thought 



It occurs to me that the Republican questioners at the Sotomayor confirmation hearings confuse 'empathy' with 'sympathy.' It also occurs to me that focusing on whether she has empathy or not is a way to introduce some sexist stereotypes through the back door, so to speak. Women, bless the little dears, are too emotional to be judges!

Of course justice itself is personified as a woman. But that's neither here nor there as surely she wold think just like Lindsey Graham who is unable to be anything but neutral.

|

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Just Because 









----
Picture by Doug, of Sasha. Music by the divine Nina Simone. Bless her.

|

The Mind Boggles 



In Arizona, you can now take your gun into a bar which serves alcoholic drinks. But you can't drink alcohol if you do that. That's a concealed gun you can take into the bars.

I'm trying to imagine how that would work in practice. Someone walks in and orders a drink. Do you frisk them before filling the order? And what happens when the bar is full of drunks and you just take at face value that they are not armed?

|

The Audacity of Ross Douthat 



He has written a column on the Pope's encyclical. The basic idea is that the Pope got a wonderful idea when he advocated combining income redistribution to the poor with no birth control, and that Americans don't have the audacity to think in such political aisle-crossing ways:

But Benedict's encyclical is nothing if not political. "Caritas in Veritate" promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism. It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos.

This is not a message you're likely to hear in Barack Obama's next State of the Union, or in the Republican Party's response. It represents a kind of left-right fusionism with little traction in American politics.

A "vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism"? Who is it that one has solidarity with, in that scenario? It's a useful thinking exercise, because ultimately what the Pope advocated is a system where power and resources are more equally shared among men. Men of all classes and races. But the role of women in this system really is as one of those resources that are shared, and banning birth control guarantees that the choice when to have children and how many to have will not be held by the women.

I'm exaggerating, naturally, to make the underlying point clearer, and that point is about power. Who gets to have more self-determination, more rest and ease, more resources. And who does not. It's a devil's contract the Pope is offering, because so many goodies for the liberals and progressives are included in it and the cost is so easy to ignore as it falls upon women.

I call it a devil's contract partly because I doubt that the Pope would ultimately support all practical income redistribution efforts (based on history of the Catholic Church) and partly because the reactions of so many liberals and progressives has been to say "Hey, the Pope is on our side!" But mostly it's a devil's contract because it makes any woman who argues against it look like someone who is willing to sacrifice all the poor of this world for her own selfish little reasons.

Thus, it is important to see that the encyclical is about the sharing of power among more men.

|

Monday, July 13, 2009

Dr. Regina Benjamin 






Is president Obama's choice for the job of the U.S. Surgeon General:

When Hurricane Katrina wrecked the little clinic here in the coastal backwaters of Alabama, Dr. Regina Benjamin laid out medical charts to dry in the post-storm sun and hopped in a pickup truck to check on her patients.

When she had trouble treating the growing influx of Southeast Asian immigrants in the shrimping community because she could not understand them, she went to a nearby Vietnamese pool hall to find an interpreter.

Benjamin, 52, was nominated by President Barack Obama on Monday to be U.S. surgeon general, pledging to take her fight from a rural, impoverished outpost to the top tier of American medicine so that "no one falls through the cracks."

She said she would combat preventable diseases. Her father died with diabetes and high blood pressure, her only brother of HIV. Her mother died of lung cancer because as a girl "she wanted to smoke just like her twin brother," an uncle now on oxygen.

"I cannot change my family's past. I can be a voice in the movement to improve our nation's health care and our nation's health," Benjamin said. "I want to be sure that no one falls through the cracks as we improve our health care system."

Pushed by the diverse patient mix of Bayou La Batre — white, black and, increasingly, immigrants from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos — Benjamin has emerged as a national leader in the fight to close gaps in health.

She became the first black woman and the first doctor under age 40 elected to the American Medical Association's board of trustees, and in 2002 became the first black woman to head a state medical society.

"For all the tremendous obstacles that she has overcome, Regina Benjamin also represents what's best about health care in America, doctors and nurses who give and care and sacrifice for the sake of their patients," Obama said in the White House Rose Garden.

She sounds like a fighter and someone in touch with the health needs of the poorest Americans. I haven't been able to find out about her opinions on issues such as reproductive choice and women's health care issues in general.

|

Please Welcome 



Xan. She has kindly agreed to write on this blog, mostly on Saturdays but also whenever the muse strikes her. She is wise and wonderful and an asset to this community, and I'm very happy to have her here.

|

The Wild, Wild West of the Web 



It's a place where guys in cowboy hats twirl their guns and shit, right? Or a place where nobody knows you're a dog or a giraffe or a minor snake goddess. Everybody is totally equal! Totally. Except, of course, in what they get offered to look at:





This is what I found on the front page of Huffington Post. The story linked to this picture was ranked the most viewed on the site, though if you clicked on the link attached to the pictures you could also vote on men in skimpy clothing. But that's just to make it look gender-neutral which it is not. After all, the semi-nekked guys don't get to be on the front page.

Huffington Post wants to make money and advertising money is in clicks. And what gets clicked is bodies of chicks. By dicks? I'm getting carried away here, but let me just add that I would have thought Huffington Post has female readers, too. I guess their clicks don't have the power.

|

Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings 



Begin today. Jill has a good write-up on some of the Republican talking points. I'm going to pay attention to differential treatment: Whether her treatment in these hearings passes the sex-reversal rule of Echidne. Just think of her as Simon Sotomayor and translate whatever is being said into those terms. If what you get sounds likely then she has not been treated differently because of her gender, always assuming that the issue discussed has not already been transmogrified by such concerns.

As a possible example of the latter, some conservatives have argued (truthfully or not) that Sotomayor lacks certain social skills. Whether such skills are ample among the eight male Justices of the Supreme Court isn't of interest to anyone, perhaps because only women are supposed to be nicey-nicey.

|

Word Salad 



This time in a headline I read over the weekend:

College culture wars: Campuses seek balance.

How do you seek balance in a war? And what, exactly, is the culture people wage war over?

You may know that I hate (hate!) that term "culture war." It's such an odd combination of two different words, both now with muzzy meanings.

Take the word "culture." Many people think that it's about books and music or about which fork to use to eat jellied crab puffs or about something not truly important. Yet in this particular context that word hides and distorts issues of justice, freedom and respect. But because many who write about the so-called culture wars are spectators to them the whole term has taken that spectatorish feeling. Then one can sigh and mutter about the importance to get past such irrelevant crap.

At the same time, culture wars are all about women's rights and lives and about the rights and lives of gays and lesbians. Culture wars are about 'traditional family', about power relationships inside it and ultimately even about money. Because a wife in a traditional family will not have the same earnings capacity or rights as a husband.

To call the debates over all that "wars" places a false equivalency on the debating sides and eradicates the history which we all share and which is not a history of equal treatment of all people. Note also that one side (guess which) in the debate wants to reduce the lives of the other side, whereas that side only fights in self-defense. "War" is a bad term for something like that. "Occupation" might be a better one.

|

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Sunday Puppy II 






Same puppy as last Sunday. Picture by Doug. Expression by Sasha.

|

How It Is Done 



Roger sent me a link to Pharyngula discussing how gender studies are sometimes popularized so that the meaning is turned upside down in the juicing-up process.

It is an extreme example of the type of bad popularizations. But I have seen the same done in a milder form many, many times, and I have written about that here and elsewhere. It's as if the plot develops in the journalist's mind first and then the bits are added in a way which supports that plot. And where do we get our plots if not from myths, stereotypes and popular culture?

Still very bad, naturally.

|

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan 



The final form of the law which regulates the personal relationships of Afghanistan's Shia minority still doesn't look terribly good for women:

The women's rights activist Wazhma Frough, who was involved in the review, said that conservative religious leaders had pressured the Justice Ministry to keep many of the most controversial clauses.

"There have been a few little changes, but they are not enough," she said. "For example, if the wife doesn't accept her husband's sexual requirements then he can deny her food."

According to civil society groups, the law, which regulates the personal affairs of Afghanistan's minority Shia community, still includes clauses which allow rapists to marry their victims as a way of absolving their crime and it tacitly approves child marriage. The law sparked riots in Kabul. Hundreds of Shia women took to the streets in protest. They were attacked by mobs of angry men who launched counter demonstrations outside the capital's largest Shia madrassa.

It is due to be ratified by parliament, which first passed the legislation in March with hardly any debate.

It strikes me that the creators of this law appear to view marriage as a labor contract: In exchange for food give sex! But the particular labor contract seems pretty one-sided as the payments to the worker (the wife) are limited to bed and board, whereas her duties appear whatever the employer (the husband) deems fit.

|

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Saturday Sasha Blogging 






By Doug.

It's palate clearing, in the middle of all these dry posts.

|

Did He Or Did He Not? 



Ogle at a young woman's bottom? That appears to be the topic of discussion on presidents Obama and Sarkozy, because of a photo taken at the G8 conference.

But what appears not to be discussed much at all is the fact that the young woman in question is either sixteen or seventeen years old, a junior delegate at the summit, and she never asked for this kind of attention. She has been turned into a thing by the media: a bottom.

|

An Unwanted Hand On Your Thigh 



Not one of your own hands. And it stays there all through a dinner party. What would you do? A sudden jab with the fruit fork?

David Brooks told the world yesterday that this happened to him. A Republican politician (a man, based on the use of "he") kept his hand on Brooks' thigh like that.

You can listen to his story here:





Women tend to get life training in the skill of how to remove such an unwanted object more often than men. I find it hard to imagine how Brooks could just sit there for so long and what on earth the hand was doing all that time.

This topic lends itself to all sorts of hilarious takes. But one which is not so hilarious is this:

Suppose that this would have happened to a young intern or aide or a young aspiring journalist or someone in a similar lower power position. Women may well find themselves in such a dilemma. There you sit, with someone important groping your thigh, someone you don't want groping it. What do you do? If you make a public fuss, will your fledgling career be down the drain? If you don't make a public fuss, will you end up in a much deeper dilemma? If you use all those little skills life teaches you to remove the hand without insult, did the message get through that you are not interested?

That's why sexual harassment at work by bosses is worse than sexual harassment by underlings, say. Because of that added power-over component.

|

Friday, July 10, 2009

Trips (by Suzie) 

This post is in honor of my friend Karen’s 50th birthday, and the picture comes from 25 years ago, when we paid to have our photo taken with some guy’s iguana near Puerto Vallarta. Karen’s on the right.

I was going to leave it at that, as just a “Friday critter,” but I got to thinking of all the traveling I’ve done with Karen.

We met in Little Rock, and one night, we figured out the world as we drove around the dark streets. Sadly, we were drinking Midori melon liqueur from the bottle, and so, we didn’t remember the answers the next day.

We piled into cars with other newspaper colleagues for the drive to New Orleans to see the Rolling Stones, with me reading “One Hundred Years of Solitude” in the back.

“I freaked out trying to drive in New Orleans because of the one-way streets off Canal, which don't follow a logical pattern and still freak me out, and you were on Valium because you were just so darn excited,” Karen adds. (I also may have been on Valium because of remnants of agoraphobia in a stadium concert.)

I got a job in New Orleans, and then so did she. We drove back to Little Rock one weekend to go to a party. Because the only music we had in her car was a warped Joan Baez 8-track, we decided to sing to pass the time. Listening to ourselves, we decided a warped Joan would be better.

Karen recalls the party: “It was in the days of maybe the Go-Go’s -- simple repetitive beat music -- and everyone was doing the pogo (dance). You were dancing with some guy who just wouldn't pogo despite your encouragement. He finally had to explain to you that he had one artificial leg. And I am not making this up.”

Our first trip out of the country was to Puerto Vallarta. Next year was Paris. We met two American guys at Versailles and ended up drinking with them in their room. We lounged on their bed, with Karen musing over what colors she should have for her wedding, and the guys looking heartsick. How risky innocence is. (Karen says I was the one who brought up her wedding.)

I was her maid of honor. The A/C broke in the chapel, and sweat rolled down my back as I sat, knelt and stood by the altar. I moved to Tampa, where she would travel to be my matron of honor. We went back and forth between New Orleans and Tampa, and I thought the last time would be in 2002, when she flew in to help me move to my native Texas. She helped me drive as far as New Orleans, with all my houseplants crammed in the backseat, like a hothouse on wheels.

In Texas, after cancer surgery, she flew in. She washed my hair as I sat crumpled up on a chair in the shower.

I moved back to Tampa, and we met in Orlando, where she had brought her son to the Magic Kingdom. Even though I took them for a legitimate reason, narcotics do improve the Disney experience.

Karen concludes: “As a magnet on my fridge says, ‘You'll always be my friend. You know all my secrets.’ "
|

White women vis a vis white men (by Suzie) 



Some progressives accuse white women of clinging to white men in order to benefit from patriarchy and white supremacy. Some radicals fault white women who fought white men for inclusion in professions and politics. Others criticize white feminists for distancing themselves from men. These critics say this is an unreasonable expectation for women of color who feel the need to ally with their men in the fight against racism.

The solution for white women seems to be: You can neither support white men, nor want what they have, but you can’t expect women of color to treat their men the same way. To me, it feels like a trick bag, as we used to say in New Orleans.

Let’s start with the first idea. Last year, Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell wrote:
Throughout history, privileged white women, attached at the hip to their husband's power and influence, have been complicit in black women's oppression.
I agree. But in a world where women, including white women, often held little power on their own, why would anyone expect them to rise up en masse against their husbands? World history also yields plenty of women of color who allied with their husbands to oppress other people of color, poorer people, people of different religions, etc. And some women, of whatever color, didn’t need husbands to oppress others.

I can understand why Harris-Lacewell doesn’t feel she can trust white women until they prove their dedication to anti-racism. I don’t trust men to fight for feminism until I see some evidence. But, then again, I also prefer some evidence from women before I give them my whole-hearted support.

If you strip race out of this equation for a moment, it’s safe to say that some women, because of their attachment to men, have been complicit in women’s oppression. I’d argue this is true of almost all women. It’s very hard not to be complicit, at least to some degree, in the systems in which we find ourselves.

Women often are blamed for our own oppression. For example, Echidne recently linked to an article about a South African man seeking redemption for the rape he committed in his youth. The first comment is from a woman who blames mothers for raising boys who grow up to commit crimes against women.

Anna Carastathis, who teaches feminist political theory at McGill and Concordia, has a criticism similar to Harris-Lacewell’s.
The problem was (and is) that although women of colour, lesbians, and working class women were always active in feminism in the US and Canada, feminism became dominated by white upper class women who retained identifications with men and white male power.

They weren’t willing to trade in the power they got from being wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters to powerful white men in order to forge true unity with women of colour and with working class white women. In other words, they weren’t willing to give up on the small privileges they gained through loyalty to white men and to whiteness in order to work for the liberation of all women. (Adrienne Rich, [1978] 1979.)
Fights against racism and capitalism also have had their share of middle-class leaders. It can help to have education, time and money to advance your causes. But the women’s movement has been so long and so broad that I don’t buy Carastathis’ given: that wealthy white women have dominated.

As I did above, I’d also argue that women from all backgrounds gain privilege from their associations with men at times. After all, we have a black woman in the White House because she’s attached to a man. (Yes, she has many other attributes, but like all other women who have lived there, she does so because of family ties.)

It’s not like all women of color and working-class white women have taken to the barricades for gender equality. Many of them are just as firmly entrenched in the status quo as anyone else, and I say this from lived experience in poor neighborhoods. Oppression doesn’t necessarily ennoble or radicalize us, I’m sorry to say.

I could turn around Carastathis’ statement, and say that some WOC and working-class white women have not been willing to give up on the small privileges gained through loyalty to men in order to work for the liberation of all women.

Let's look at the three examples that Carastathis uses to illustrate the racism and classism of “privileged white feminists.” We've discussed these issues before on this blog, but I want to name them now briefly so that people understand what's being debated. No. 1, she says, privileged white feminists fought for abortion, but ignored – and sometimes even encouraged – forced sterilization. I can't speak about Canada, but in the United States, I challenged that idea in this post. Planned Parenthood also has refuted accusations about Margaret Sanger.

Second, Carastathis says privileged white feminists sought professional jobs, getting out of the home at the expense of poor women and women of color. I talked about domestic work here and here.

Third, Carastathis says gaining political power, even the vote, was divisive because it benefited privileged white women more. Although they did benefit first, in regard to jobs and politics, other women were able to follow. Including me.

From the idea that white feminists are too close to white men, let’s jump to the accusation that they are too distant, a critique from womanism. On Black Girl Blogging, elledub08 says one aspect of womanism is: “supporting and working with men as opposed to treating them like the enemy.” The Feminist Theory Dictionary says womanism
includes the word “man”, recognizing that Black men are an integral part of Black women’s lives as their children, lovers, and family members. Womanism accounts for the ways in which black women support and empower black men, and serves as a tool for understanding the Black woman’s relationship to men as different from the white woman’s.
The word first appeared in print in the writing of Alice Walker, who said a womanist is “not a separatist.”
As Patricia Hill Collins aptly notes, "many black women view feminism as a movement that at best, is exclusively for women, and, at worst, dedicated to attacking or eliminating men … Womanism seemingly supplies a way for black women to address gender-oppression without attacking black men" (p. 11).
Once again, if race could be taken out of the equation, a lot of womanism would sound like liberal feminism, which has attracted far more support than more radical feminists of any color. It’s not surprising that some white women want to call themselves womanists.

As an example of liberal feminism, consider Betty Friedan, who “was adamant that the women's movement present itself as reasonable, moderate, heterosexual, family-loving not family-destroying, man-loving not man-hating in its approach.” (Friedan also falls into the category of “privileged white feminist” who gets accused of ignoring poor women and women of color. Interestingly, Friedan worked for rights for African Americans and workers before writing “The Feminine Mystique,” a criticism of suburban homemaking.)

Womanists and WOC feminists do not support men of color uncritically. That would be a mistake, since the world has a long history of women fighting for rights alongside men, only to find that the new (male) regimes had little interest in women’s rights.

For some WOC, supporting men of their own ethnicity is a political stance. But others do it for the same reasons many white women do: They want their lovers, friends and family to succeed.
On the flip side, white women also can support white men for social-justice reasons. “White men” is a broad category that includes men who are oppressed in different ways, such as by class, ability, sexuality, age, etc. A white woman may want to encourage her gay son, for example, or bolster her working-class family, including the men.

Generalizations about groups help us make sense of our world. When talking about the differences between groups, however, we can't forget the differences within groups.
|

Thursday, July 09, 2009

The Turn-Around Trick 



I find this a most useful trick in politics in general, and recommend its use. It has to do with reversing the argument or question and then studying what you get.

For instance, I just heard an ad for a radio program, to be aired later today on the local public radio station, asking this question: "Can Americans afford another stimulus package?"

Do the turn-around and ask this question: "Can Americans afford NOT to have another stimulus package?" Note how what we think about is different in these two cases and how the mostly invisible basis for comparisons changes.

|

Worth Reading 



The latest from the Iranian demonstrations in which women are taking a major role.

On the question whether the CIA deceived the Congress during those odd famiglia years of the last administration.

And Emily Bazelon interviews Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the role of women in the SCOTUS.

|

Today's Joke Analysis. And Puppy. 






Sasha, again. Courtesy of Doug. That enjoyment of life!

Here's the joke. I copied it down somewhere on the Internet:


A dedicated Teamsters union worker was attending a convention in Las Vegas and decided to check out the local brothels. When he got to the first one, he asked the Madam, "Is this a union house?"

"No," she replied, "I'm sorry it isn't."

"Well, if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?"

"The house gets $80 and the girls get $20," she answered

Offended at such unfair dealings, the union man stomped off down the street in search of a more equitable, hopefully unionized shop. His search continued until finally he reached a brothel where the Madam responded, "Why yes sir, this is a union house. We observe all union rules"

The man asked, "And if I pay you $100, what cut do the girls get?" "The girls get $80 and the house gets $20."

"That's more like it!" the union man said.

He handed the Madam $100, looked around the room, and pointed to a stunningly attractive blonde.

"I'd like her," he said.

"I'm sure you would, sir," said the Madam. Then she gestured to a 92-year old woman in the corner, "but Ethel here has 67 years seniority and according to union rules, she's next."

The joke may be read as an anti-union one, as one which attempts to tell us why unions don't work (they make you fuck the old hag, say). So pro-union folks might not find it quite as funny as those who hate unions. Or perhaps it doesn't matter that the joke is an anti-union one, because it's funny. In the same way all brothel jokes are seen as funny. Just a bit of silliness, acceptable to all.

That's the usual analysis of something like this. A feminist sort of gets handicapped from the get-go. For instance, I can no longer read jokes like this and not take the imaginary place of all the people in the joke, at least for a fraction of a second, and I can't avoid noticing that the women working in the brothels get hosed in all the versions. Either they get only twenty bucks out of the hundred or they don't get custom at all. Or perhaps most disgustingly, they still have to work a job like that at the age of 92.

(You know what's interesting? I have those little imps using a lemon grater on my brain right now, whispering that everyone will tell you what a prude you are, what a humorless feminazi you are, and that you should relax and not get so wound up about every little bit of fun in life. And the imps have a point, of course (not to mention a grater): Jokes like this don't really matter in the larger view of life, and I don't ultimately care what jokes people tell each other.

But I really believe that interpreting what it is we laugh at and why can tell us a lot about the society. Just imagine yourself an alien from outer space and think of the prior explanations that would be needed to explain this joke to you.)

|

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Ssseexx Sells! 



You have to imagine that said in an exotic voice, like mine. Then you have to clear your brain and start all over again. Like with this:

Fast Food Chains Steam Up Ads
Sales for Burgers Include Bikini-Clad Girls, Sexual Innuendo


Advertisers have never shied away from using sex to sell their products because, as the old adage goes, sex sells. And over the last decade, some fast food chains have upped the ante with more sexual innuendo in their television and print advertisements.

There's an entire genre of racy fast food ads, like the Hardee's promotion that talks to consumers about "creamy balls" and "happy holes" for its biscuit holes campaign.

Then there's the Carl's Jr. and Hardee's promotion called "Hot Chicks Eating Burgers," in which the two chains, both owned by CKE Restaurants, ask for video submission of attractive women doing just that.

But some people say the ad campaigns have gone too far.

"It seems an entire industry is set on trying to push every bound of sexual innuendo in order to sell something like a hamburger," said Dan Isett, Parents Television Council public policy director.

Go to the link and watch the video discussion on this topic. Pay special attention to the way in which female body = sex, with few exceptions. Indeed, when asked about their 'sexy' ads:

The owner of Hardees and Carl's Jr. said in a statement the companies' ads are "intended to communicate the core message of our premium quality food to our target audience of Young, Hungry Guys. We do not aim to exclude or offend any other group."

Ultimately, then, the conversation is not about the sexualisation of advertising but about the use of women's bodies doing apparently sexual things to sell stuff to men.

This Singapore ad is a good example of how that works. See Suzie's earlier post about it:





Burger King defended the ad by pointing out that it wasn't used outside the Singapore market and that it made them money.

|

Taxing Health Benefits 



What's that all about? And how can you possibly make the topic interesting?

That's how I imagine a hypothetical reader (with quivering antennae on planet zfgv34) might react to the title of this post. My rude answer to that reader would be that brains must be exercised, just as muscles, and that I'm not a clown who dances for the pleasure of aliens.

Where was I before I so rudely interrupted myself? Oh yes, taxing health benefits. Well, some very lucky people get health insurance from their employers, and the employer pays a portion of the costs of that package. That employer-paid portion is currently not viewed as taxable income. The Republicans want this changed in the new Obama health care proposal but the Democrats are having second thoughts:

--Senate Democrats are increasingly resistant to proposals to tax some employer-provided health benefits, threatening already fragile bipartisan negotiations over legislation to overhaul the U.S. health-care system.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said that public polls conducted over the July 4 congressional recess and reviewed by senators are causing lawmakers to have second thoughts about limiting the tax exclusion for employer health plans.

"It remains a significant option, but we're looking at other options," Conrad told reporters Tuesday. "When you go out and ask people across the country, their initial reaction is, they don't like it."

Taxing employer-paid health benefits could be used to partially finance the care of the currently uninsured. That's what the Republicans want to do. It's odd that they are suddenly pro-taxation, unless one views it as an attempt to kill any health care reform. Or unless one realizes that some other taxes (most probably on the wealthy) would have to be raised if this particular funding plan is torpedoed.

Opinion polls suggest that people don't want the health benefits taxed.

Here's the problem with taxing benefits which have not been taxed in the past: The extra tax makes health insurance more expensive than it was. It's as if the price of coverage has risen. And when the price rises, people, on average, will buy less of the product. So in theory at least the taxing of health benefits could reduce access to health care by some while the same taxes are being used to fund increased access for others.

Whether this would be true in practice is harder to say, because employer-paid health insurance is a fringe benefit more common for the higher earners among workers. Some of those may well have completely adequate coverage even after some retrenchment. At the same time, focusing on the employees as the group to bear a large share of the cost burden seems sort of...classist.

|

Today's Teh Cute 






Just because. Courtesy of Doug (and Sasha, the puppy) as usual.
|

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

On Wedding Dreams and Hunting Trips 



The Feminist Majority Foundation news site tells us that:

7/7/2009 - School officials in Lawrence County, Alabama, have agreed to end single-sex classes. The school district reached a settlement after being notified by the American Civil Liberties Union that its sex segregated programs were illegal.

The ACLU and ACLU of Alabama learned of sex-segregation after sending an Open Records Act (ORA) request to the school board in December 2008. The response to this request showed that not only were the students assigned to single-sex classes, but the teachers were encouraged to teach boys and girls differently.

B-b-but weren't we told how boyz and gurlz learn all different and how important single sex education would be for them to develop in the most optimal way? Because of those girl brains and boy brains? Like this:

Through the ORA inquiry, the ACLU learned that students in East Lawrence Middle School were being assigned to single-sex courses. The school district's ORA response stated that teachers were encouraged to teach boys and girls differently. For example, according to the school district's response, "a writing prompt for a boy may be what place in the world he would most like to go hunting or drive on a race track where the girls may write about their dream wedding dress or their ideal birthday party."

Hilarious. Or it would be if the aim wasn't so nasty. Note the intended focus: the girls towards the family and other people, the boys towards expressions of independence and excitement.

|

The Pope's Encyclical 



Pope Benedict has released his encyclical on economic justice. It's left of all the policies of the two main parties in the United States. He explicitly advocates income transfers to the poor via the government and government regulation and control of the marketplaces. But he equally explicitly argues against abortion and any kind of birth control. I wonder what American progressives think of that mix? I also wonder how real economic justice could come about in a world where women are not allowed much self-determination. But that's because I'm a horrible feminazi.

A few quotes from him:

In his encyclical, Benedict calls for charity guided by truth. "Charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples," he says. "Justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity, because this is always concerned with man and his needs," he writes. "Locating resources, financing, production, consumption and all the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence."

The encyclical notes the globalization that has taken place since Paul's encyclical was issued over 40 years ago. Alas, "as society becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbors but does not make us brothers." True "development of peoples depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side." The goal of such development is "rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy."

We are all gonna be brothers, I guess! Brother Echidne.

I'm pleased with the Pope's economic views, of course, even though I'm not sure what influence they will have on, say, the Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court.

|

Cappuccino, Please 



Researchers have found that caffeine might be a preventive or even curative treatment for Alzheimer's:

Coffee drinkers will be clinking mugs in a toast to new research suggesting that just two strong cups of the black stuff a day can reverse the effects of Alzheimer's disease.

There's just one snag: The study was done with mice. So now I know what to give any mice who appear a bit senile. Whether the findings carry over to humans remains to be seen.

|

Silvio and The Gurlz 



Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's Prime Minister, and the man who is going to host the G8 summit starting on Wednesday, really likes gurlz:

The good news for Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is that Italians are no longer quite so obsessed with his wife's demand for a divorce or his flirtations with an 18-year-old model. The bad news is that now they are fixated on his parties with paid escorts and the high-priced hooker who has told Italian media that she spent a night with him.

A quick read through the articles discussing this demonstrates a focus on Berlusconi's private life, his libido and his great love of young female beauty. There's not a lot on how this translates to his actual policies, except for this bit:

A day after British newspaper The Guardian published a stinging editorial describing Mr Berlusconi as Europe's most sexist leader, a group of senior women academics in Italy urged first ladies, including President Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's wife, Sarah, not to attend the G8.

In an open letter headed "Appeal to the first ladies", the four professors - from Milan, Perugia, Padova and Ferrara universities - braved Government wrath to state their anger about Mr Berlusconi's behaviour.

"We are profoundly indignant, as women working within the world of universities and culture, for the way the Presidente del Consiglio, Silvio Berlusconi, treats women in the public and private realm," the letter states.

"We refer not only to the Prime Minister's relationships, which transcend the personal sphere and assume a public dimension, but more importantly to the way in which political personnel is recruited and to the sexist behaviour and discourse that, in a perverse and systematic way, de-legitimises the presence of women on the social and institutional scene."

In a criticism of the promotion of starlets, actresses and models as candidates of Mr Berlusconi's People of Freedom party, the four professors - Chiara Volpato, Angelica Mucchi Faina, Anne Maas and Marcella Ravenna - said Mr Berlusconi's behaviour threatened the dignity of all Italian women and was having a negative effect on feminine self-determination and achievement.

That private-public distinction is always a tricky one. But there's something very wrong if Mr. Berlusconi promotes women simply on the basis of their sex appeal to him. Doing so ridicules those women in Italian politics who have genuine achievements and who have done their political apprenticeships.

|

Monday, July 06, 2009

And Now Something Completely Different 





|

We Can Do It! 



Or so Paul Krugman thinks, "it" being the offering of health care coverage to everyone:

Let me start by pointing out something serious health economists have known all along: on general principles, universal health insurance should be eminently affordable.

After all, every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. For example, the French health care system covers everyone, offers excellent care and costs barely more than half as much per person as our system.

And even if we didn't have this international evidence to reassure us, a look at the U.S. numbers makes it clear that insuring the uninsured shouldn't cost all that much, for two reasons.

First, the uninsured are disproportionately young adults, whose medical costs tend to be relatively low. The big spending is mainly on the elderly, who are already covered by Medicare.

Second, even now the uninsured receive a considerable (though inadequate) amount of "uncompensated" care, whose costs are passed on to the rest of the population. So the net cost of giving the uninsured explicit coverage is substantially less than it might seem.

He is right, I think. When Medicare began in the 1960s health care costs went up a lot, but that was because the elderly are the main users of health care funds. Adding today's uninsured wouldn't cost anywhere that much.

Krugman makes another important observation:

Now, about those specifics: The HELP plan achieves near-universal coverage through a combination of regulation and subsidies. Insurance companies would be required to offer the same coverage to everyone, regardless of medical history; on the other side, everyone except the poor and near-poor would be obliged to buy insurance, with the aid of subsidies that would limit premiums as a share of income.

These are two very important aspects of any successful reform. I know that the idea of forcing people to buy coverage is not a pleasant one, but think about what would happen if this wasn't required.

Individuals who are fairly healthy now might just not buy coverage at all. This has two consequences: First, their payments wouldn't be there to fund the care in general. Second, should they suddenly need care they'd be still uninsured and either would have to be covered by others or left to suffer without coverage.

There's a more subtle consequence, too: If the healthy and young are allowed to opt out of insurance altogether, the average expenses per insured will have to rise. This makes more people want to opt out (some of the other healthy people, say) and the average expenses will keep on rising, and then even more people find the coverage too expensive. And so it goes. That's why requiring insurance is an important part of the plan.

Requiring the insurers to accept everyone is an equally important part, because in the absence of that requirement firms would want to cherry pick: to avoid potentially expensive cases and to gear their advertising and recruitment towards the young and healthy.

|

Swimming in The Sewers 



I should probably end most days by shaking my fist at McCain. It was he who gave us Sarah Palin to chew on, though I'm not freeing her from the responsibility of not having done some self-inspection before agreeing to be THE FIRST FEMALE REPUBLICAN VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

It's the almost total invisibility of that bolded statement that I keep musing over. Something similar happened during the Democratic primaries, by the way. That women are the majority of Americans and that no woman has ever sat on those chairs of high power is invisible to even those who believe themselves to be for justice and equality. It. Just. Doesn't. Matter. One female writer even argued that girls now have Nancy Pelosi to look up to and that's enough for us wimminz.

So. Here's what angers me right now: The tearfest of Sarah Palin may be mostly justified but it allows the misogynists to join in, and they are not just attacking Palin, my friends: They are attacking women in general. If McCain had wanted to give them that opportunity he couldn't have done better than by picking Palin. It's as if he thought picking a woman as his running mate would be a good stunt and as no woman would ever be competent enough, let's just pick one that the wingnuts love and be done with it. Let's not do any background checks. And good legs would be nice. Betcha.

So yes, I hate McCain for what he did to me as a feminist, by putting me in the position of having to wade into the sewers of lefty blogs to find out what sexist crap might be floating around on the topic of Sarah Palin. I do that not to defend Palin but to defend the women of the future who might one day run for the office, and I do it with great bitterness, because I'm going to be told off for spending time on someone like Palin by all those who don't see that certain comments are not just about Palin but about women in politics in general.

Had I not observed much the same aimed at Hillary Clinton I might be more willing to believe that the same kind of sexism wouldn't be aimed at women in general but only at those who appear to almost seek that kind of attention. But it was aimed at Clinton and will be aimed at other women, too, unless the distinction between acceptable (if harsh) criticism and unacceptable sexism is being made clear.

For all these reasons, I have put together a quick survey of sexist comments from Eschaton and Democratic Underground threads. They are not the majority of the harsh Palin comments and not even a significant minority. But they appeared not to provoke any discussion or any disagreement.

Sarah Palin talks like a beauty pagent queen.

She says a lot of words in order to look all intelligent and stuff in order to fill out the time a person of normal IQ would take to answer the question...

===========

she thought she was pulling of a cunning stunt with her announcement.

============

she thought she was pulling of a cunning stunt with her announcement.


stunning.

==============

I'm disappointed. I thought all that beauty pageant stage walking Palin did would have better prepared her for this epic fail.

=============

Yeah, maybe Carrie Prejean can co-host with Sarah. They seem like they have a lot in common.

===========

Let's put it this way.

Sarah Palin is probably a sexual object in the sense of most porn starlets.

Good sex (there is no other kind) but you want her out of your bed before the cock crows, because the thought of having to make small talk with her over breakfast repulses you no end.

==============

Palin's not hot. She's actually pretty dick deflating, in an ignorant-stupid-moralistic way. Sorry, but she's a typical 40 - something GOP woman that thinks with that push-up bra, tummy tuck panty hose, and makeup from hell that she still has it.

she doesn't.

================

She has 6 pounds of cake on her face, is unbelievably stupid, arrogant, and mean, and probably smells pretty bad.

Yeah - a real doll.

=============

"She has 6 pounds of cake on her face, is unbelievably stupid, arrogant, and mean, and probably smells pretty bad.

Yeah - a real doll."


Guys pay extra for all that.

============

so Palin found a clever way to piss off the MSM in a big way before the long week-end

man, waht a bitch!

==========

she gets on national tv and rambles for 20 minutes...but don't talk about her

And do we get a great shot of her tits? NO!!!!!

============

I could've straightened her out with a good, hard spanking, but Cindy wouldn't let me.

Now look what's happened . . .
John McCain |

==============


UPDATE: Palin changed her mind again. She's quitting, again.

============

TOP STORY: Palin changed her mind a third time. She's staying. For now.

Praise Jeebus!

=============

No one should be surprised Sarah didn't serve her full term.

She didn't go full term with Trigg either.

===============

Child services should remove those children from the "care" of their obviously insane mother. She's on par with that woman who gave birth into a toilet.

==========

I felt a lot of pity for her family today. Why did they have to there when she rambled on and on, for so long? Can't she do something by herself?

-------------

So you need a disabled infant more than a disabled infant needs you? WTF?

That poor baby sure has his work cut for himself, propping up that damn bawling woman. I wonder if Angelina Jolie is up for a rescue mission.

I mean...seriously. It's disturbing.

============

Word is that Sarah has developed a fascination for fashionable clothes since the election and she is driving the Palin household towards bankruptcy. Todd has insisted that she peddle her ass to the highest bidder or get out.

=================

palin's pregnant with levi's love child.

===========

I hope she can become a spokesperson for drilling in ANWR now, and helping this country become independent of foreign oil.

She should pose naked on a drilling rig.

=================

Taking bets how long before Palin poses for Playboy......

===================

Maybe she's pregnant again

Possible names:

Twig, Swig, Swag, Cog, Bunk, Tweet

========

Does this mean she'll finally go away???

I am so sick of Drama Queen Barbie.

===========

Th asshole is going to be a constant reminder of what you can do with NO qualifications

Goodbye you whore.

===============

These comments are not a proper study. I didn't spend enough time on the sites to do that. I chose them because they either applied terms such as cunt, bitch or whore to Palin, because she was sexualized, or because the comments applied a general stereotype about women to her (the changing her mind bit, say). The comments about her parenting skills or lack of them might not be viewed as sexist, but I included them because I don't think that male politicians are exposed to the same criticism, especially as Sarah Palin does have a husband and the children do have a father who appears to mostly stay at home.
----
I should probably point out that by "the sewers" I mean sexism, not certain sites or threads on those sites or any particular commenter.
--------
Added later: I removed some quotes which might be argued to be insufficiently clearly sexist.

|

Why The Conservative Supremes Matter 



Well, you know it anyway, but it's always useful to document:

The Supreme Court heard five environmental law cases in the term that ended Monday, and environmental groups lost every time. It was, said Richard J. Lazarus, a director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, "the worst term ever" for environmental interests.

The court allowed Navy exercises using sonar that threatened whales off California. It limited the liability of companies partly responsible for toxic spills. It made it harder to challenge Forest Service regulations and easier to dump mining waste into an Alaskan lake. And it allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to use cost-benefit analysis to decide how much marine life may be killed by cooling structures at power plants.

Business groups expressed measured satisfaction with the decisions.

"The court does seem to be bringing more common sense back to environmental law," Robin S. Conrad, a lawyer with the United States Chamber of Commerce, said at a recent news briefing.

Merrily skipping towards disaster, we are, led by John Roberts.

|

Sunday, July 05, 2009

Sunday Dog Blogging 



Courtesy of Doug, here are Widget and Sasha again.







|

Sunday Book Post 



I got three fun books (read: like fast food but not just like fast food) from the library for this weekend. Two newish Sara Paretskys and C.S. Friedman's Wings of Wrath, a fantasy book. I had not read Friedman before and probably won't in the future (her fantasy not being the kind I like), but one particular quote I found interesting.

Kamala is a peasant woman who has managed to become a Magister, an immortal wizard of a rather nasty type. All other Magisters are men and very few of them are even consider the idea of a female Magister, because women are too weak and emotional to wield such power.

In the following scene Kamala is watching (in a bird shape) two soldiers, a woman and a man, riding towards danger. The man is important for her plans, the woman is not. This is what Kamala thinks:

If he had been alone she might have approached him directly, but he was not. And for reasons Kamala did not fully understand, the presence of a woman by his side made her uneasy. It probably wouldn't have if the woman had been decked out in a stylish riding gown, trailing silk skirts sidesaddle over the flanks of her mount. Such a woman Kamala would simply disdain and dismiss, a mere traveling accessory to the one who really mattered. But no, this woman was clearly a comrade-at-arms in every sense of the word. And that bothered her.

Why?
You are jealous, she thought.
What a bizarre thought! Jealous of a morati [mortal]?
Jealous of how he accepts her.

The woman was dressed in a man's garb, but not in any manner that kept her true sex hidden. She had not flirted with the men outside the meetinghouse as a normal woman might have done, but Kamala was willing to bet that the other Guardians were not unaware of the difference between them, or its sexual potential. Yet they all kept a respectful distance, of their own accord. Sometimes one or the other would make a joking comment about her effect on them all, but even then they were laughing with her, not at her.

True acceptance.

It burned her to see it. Why? Because they accepted a warrior woman for what she truly was, not for some role that she must play in order to win men's favor? Because she did not have to pretend to be something less than a woman to win a respected place among them?

If the Magisters had half so much tolerance, Kamala thought bitterly, things might be very different for her now. And at night, in her fitful dreaming, she imagined what that might have been like for her. To be part of their brotherhood without the need to deny her sex. Simply accepted.

She kept her distance.

I found this fascinating as a parable about the way young women might feel in the military (if they are let down in similar ways Kamala was), in the academia and even in business if their particular sub-fields are male dominated. It may be that young women are now "simply accepted" in all those places? Still, the above quote reminds me of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's attempt to take her deceased brother's place in her father's esteem.

And what about the Paretskys? They were fun. I like to read descriptions of cities, especially with a nice dose of lefty politics.

|

Sarah Palin and Opting Out (by Liz) 

Who really knows what's behind Sarah Palin's decision to resign as Governor of Alaska? Certainly not the fact she wants to avoid becoming a lame duck governor for the good of Alaska.



Popular theories being floated include:


· she is gearing up to run for president in 2012


· there is a big scandal set to hit her office in coming days and she is getting out in advance


· she has accepted a well-paying job in the private sector- perhaps as a TV commentator


· she was tired of all the negative press


· she might be pregnant (This classic from CNN's Rick Sanchez).



Here’s another theory: Sarah Palin simply opted out.



Opting out is a loaded concept. The mainstream media often paint opting out as a decision made by women to quit work and live out some kind of warm and fuzzy stay-at-home-mother retro-fantasy. Occasionally, we hear about the women who seem to have opted out but in reality were forced out of the workplace due to a lack of work/life flexibility options and/or hostile working environments. Rarely do we read about the women who leave the corporate world because, quite simply, they think corporate America sucks.



I've interviewed a lot of women who have "opted out" of the corporate world. Many of these women don’t stop working –often they start their own businesses. While almost all of them cite flexibility as a big bonus, motherhood is not the only reason they leave. Their reasons are personal and vary greatly. They leave because they climb high enough on the ladder to get a view of the top and they don't like what they see. Because they can't align their personal values with their company's business objectives. Because they don’t respect their coworkers. Because they don’t like who they are becoming. Because they aren't passionate about their work. Because they have the strength and self-confidence to swap a big paycheck and status for a life more in tune with their own beliefs. Because they aren't passionate about what they are doing. Because they choose to place their own well-being ahead of anything else.



We know the personal is political and ultimately we need to address these issues collectively. After all, studies continue to show that women leaders are good for business. There is risk in women opting out.



Will I be surprised if there is more to the Palin story? No. But what if there isn't? What if, in this case, the political is personal? What if there's nothing else to the story and Sarah Palin simply quit?



|

Saturday, July 04, 2009

Happy Fourth of July 






Not so many fireworks this year.

|

That Conscience Clause Again 



I have written quite a lot* about the health care worker's conscience clause in the past. Somehow I thought I wouldn't have to go on writing about it for ever, sigh:

President Barack Obama said today that he still favors a "robust" federal policy protecting health-care workers who have moral objections to performing some procedures even though he plans to roll back a Bush administration rule that expanded such protection.

Speaking to eight religion reporters at the White House before his first meeting with Pope Benedict XVI next Friday, Obama sought to reassure Catholic health-care workers that they would not be forced to perform abortions and other procedures that violate the Church's teachings. Obama said he is a "believer in conscience clauses" and supports a new policy that would "certainly not be weaker" than the rules in place before the expansion late in President George W. Bush's administration.

I'm not sure what "certainly not weaker" means in this context or what "robust" might mean, because this is is so far only talk. But let me just point out that the stronger the conscience clause permissions are the less options women have when seeking health care.

I didn't know that Obama was all for conscience clauses before the elections. Did you?
-----
* Here are some of my blog posts on conscience clause(click on each word separately). (I have also written about it for the Huffington Post and the American Prospect magazine but their contents are covered here).

|

Heh. I Guess This Is One Way To Equal Treatment 



New men's fashions...





More seriously, I don't want the fashion industry to start treating men as horribly as they treat women, in terms of looking ridiculous, being unable to walk in the outfits and so on.

|

Please Welcome 



Liz O'Donnell. She has kindly accepted my plea for her to write for this blog. Liz's posts will appear every other Sunday, beginning tomorrow. She writes about:

F words: feminism, (life in her) forties and
sometimes family. Her work has been published in The Boston Globe Magazine, The Atlanta Journal Constitution and The Glass Hammer where she covers women and the workplace.

Thank you very much, Liz!

|

Friday, July 03, 2009

More liberal religion election news (by Suzie) 



Sunday, I wrote about how my denomination, the Unitarian Universalists, elected its first Latino president. Our liberal cousins, the United Church of Christ, just elected its second black president. Both of these denominations are predominantly white and female. Neither has ever had a female president. What a fascinating coincidence.

As background: Obama went to a UU church as a child and a UCC church in Chicago. UUs are so liberal that they stopped being Christian. You'd be hard-pressed to find a Christian denomination more liberal than UCC. But, as I'm reminded time and again, progressive does not necessarily equal feminist.

ETA a little more analysis: Churches are an example of how discrimination works differently for different groups. People of different ethnicities often can find churches in which their group predominates, and they often can attend as a family. Women have less opportunity to attend a church that is all or almost-all female, if they want to go with male members of their family, or if they want to socialize with men. Maybe this is one reason churches take us for granted.
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

Still life: Cat, conch, asparagus fern.
|

Independence (by Suzie) 



I love this song by Celeste Krenz and Rebecca Folsom of the Rhythm Angels. I first heard it on “Women Voices: Folk Alliance 2008.” It’s also on the Angels’ CD, “Girls Like Us,” released by Celeste’s company, High Horse Records. DJ the DJ calls it the best song of 2009.

Jon Chandler describes it as a “you’re a cheatin’ bastard” song.” I didn’t read it that way; the woman in the song is living in fear. Barry Mazor, at No Depression, calls the song “an in-your-face blast concerning gun control.” But it's so much more. Although the woman in the song muses about killing her husband, she sounds like she’d be satisfied, at the end, to just drive away. I messaged Celeste Krenz, who was kind enough to explain:
We wrote the song late one night. I was going through a divorce at the time (it was not over a cheating husband) but any divorce can be difficult. Diana Jones, Liz Barnez, Rebecca Folsom and I were in my kitchen and just talking about the power struggle and being heard in relationships. We started talking about why people resort to using guns and I said, (I have a very soft voice) I am a fairly reasonable person but there have been a few times in my life that I'm glad I did not have a gun. We started writing the song and finished in about an hour.

You really could look at it both ways, gun control and gun protection. It's pretty pathetic that women can't get protection from the police until they've been seriously threatened ... and on the other hand, a perfectly balanced person with a gun in hand at the wrong moment could make a life changing decision out of blinding anger. Guns are so distant ... you don't even need to touch the person.

Oh, it was a good discussion that night about domestic abuse, the world of invisible people who think the gun is their voice (mass shootings) and everything in between. In the end, I think she just knows that the gun would allow her to walk away. It's a fantasy about being powerful enough to be free ...
Gerri Gribi has compiled lists of songs pertaining to domestic violence, as has Bethany Pombar.

Because tomorrow is the Fourth, I can’t help but mention Gretchen Peters' "Independence Day," a hit for Martina McBride. I love how this country song applies phrases from Christianity and patriotism to abused women. Here’s the chorus, plus a kicker:
Let Freedom ring, let the white dove sing.
Let the whole world know that today is a day of reckoning.
Let the weak be strong, let the right be wrong.
Roll the stone away, let the guilty pay, it's Independence Day.

Talk about your revolution.
It's Independence Day.
One issue for women who need to sell CDs or concert tickets is that songs like this can make men uncomfortable. At least, that was my take in April, at a house concert by Laurie McClain. She has a new song with the refrain "thank you for staying away" for the abusive husband who left her with two young children. Chandler, mentioned above, praises “If I Had a Gun” but jokes that it prompted him to move his stool a little farther away from the singers. I haven’t seen male singers worry about how the women in their audience will respond to songs in which men commit violence against women, even though it’s much more likely that the women in the audience will have experienced physical abuse than vice versa.

There are other songs titled “If I Had A Gun.” In Brooklyn Zu’s version, guns buy respect, maybe even manhood. The same seems to be true in a song by Federation. Dead Milkmen talk about a gun getting respect, but the song is also a good argument for gun control. Ditto for a song by Gene Simmons. Jeff Silver writes about suicide. Atomic Bitchwax wants what he wants. Otherwise, I don’t know. Diefenbaker: I have no idea. Ditto for an Oasis song that others are trying to decipher.

Bruce Cockburn took the if-I-had-a-weapon construction further with “If I Had A Rocket Launcher,” in which he fantasizes about taking down those who kill in the name of the state. I think it is easier for progressives to focus on the violence and repression of governments than to understand that violence and repression in the home is also a social injustice. Peace begins at home.
|

Thursday, July 02, 2009

How Now Howard? 



Howard Kurtz writes about reporters on the Michelle Obama beat and their race and gender. It's an odd piece, sort of like an embroidery with several unfinished ends dangling from it, and I can't make up my mind which of those ends I should tug on to see what might come unraveled.

To take it in steps, the beginning of Kurtz's article suggests that the selection of journalists who get access to Michelle Obama is racist and sexist:

While Michelle Obama was meeting with doctors and patients at the Upper Cardozo Health Center, nearly two dozen journalists stood behind a white rope in a small room upstairs, most finally growing so tired during the hour-long wait that they sat on the floor.

Finally the first lady emerged, read a short speech about releasing federal stimulus money for community health clinics -- including $2.5 million for the Northwest Washington center -- and greeted a handpicked audience with handshakes and hugs. Then she turned and left, and the press pool quietly filed out.

Rachel Swarns of the New York Times and The Washington Post's Robin Givhan were among those herded behind the rope Monday. They and the other main beat reporters -- Newsweek's Allison Samuels, Darlene Superville of the Associated Press and Politico's Nia-Malika Henderson -- have something in common: They are all African American women.

Perhaps this gives them a richer cultural understanding of Obama as a trailblazer. Indeed, most write with enthusiasm, in some cases even admiration, about the first lady as a long-awaited role model for black women.

But then something else grabs hist attention and the article turns into examining whether African-American female journalists indeed might be better suited for covering the First Lady:

Whether racial and gender identification produces a gauzier, more favorable portrayal of Obama is perhaps too early to judge. After all, no one raises questions when an Irish American male reporter covers a pol named Murphy. And with her carefully crafted focus on her children, affordable fashion and such reduced-fat apple pie issues as healthy eating, Obama has done little to warrant sharp criticism.

Even within that short paragraph I quote the emphasis shifts again, because the last sentence pretty much says that this is probably OK because Michelle Obama isn't saying anything very interesting. Well, "interesting" for guys such as Howard Kurtz.

But note that gauziness! Ooh! Might there be bias in having African-American women cover one of their own? Not that there's anything wrong with that, naturally. After all, white men have covered one of their own for a few centuries and it's worked out very well for them.

As the article meanders on Kurtz muses on his fear that covering "one of your own" might make the journalists biased though of course special knowledge is a Good Thing, too. But what about that racial preference, again? Like this:

Such developments can foster a mixture of tokenism and opportunity. When Jesse Jackson made his first White House run in 1984, a number of black political reporters got their first crack at a presidential campaign. The assignment was a sideshow -- Jackson had no serious chance of winning -- but also boosted the careers of his chroniclers.

Tricky stuff, is it not? What makes reading this even trickier are a few additional dangling ends which are not part of Kurtz's main theses (whatever those might be) but which I can't help noticing all the time.

The first of these has to do with the fact that male journalists haven't exactly wrestled each other for the chance to cover the First Lady (pardon for the unintentional pun there), because that shit is for chicks. The news about presidents' wives are supposed to be about fashions and family values and the pursuit of some public cause so uncontroversial that there's no news in it. It's only when the First Lady says or does something scandalous that the beat becomes hot. And I can't help noticing that this is pretty much what Kurtz writes.

The second dangling end is not really about Kurtz at all but about what we view as in-depth coverage of women's issues. An example:

The day before the inauguration, Henderson wrote in Politico that "to fashionistas, she's Michelle O, the new Jackie. . . . Post-feminists see Michelle Obama as one of their own, the having-it-all Harvard-educated lawyer. . . . African American women say she'll upend age-old stereotypes of the angry black woman who can't find a good man, or keep him when she does."

We live in a post-feminist world where women can have it all but where African-American women suffer from the stereotype of being too angry to hang on to a man. Soundbite after soundbite and the invisible elephant just lounges on that living-room couch. Note how that whole quote is about a world of women? Not a man, child, corporation or society in sight. Women struggle with trying to have it all or with their bad reputations and all this happens somehow not in the actual society but only inside their own little heads.

My anger there has nothing to do with Michelle Obama. It isn't even about Howard Kurtz's meanderings with his foot in his mouth (How does he do that? Can he really have it all?) It's that odd way in which women's problems are a) trivialized into silly fashions or soundbites and b) removed from the societal contexts which would allow us to understand them.

|

Today's Funny Post 



Comes courtesy of Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern and friends. They have written something called "Oklahoma Citizen's Proclamation for Morality" and invite people to sign it next month at the State Capitol. You ready for it?

Here it goes:

In her proclamation, Kern also blames people outside of Wall Street and Washington for the national recession.

The proclamation states: "Whereas, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and Whereas, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse ,and many other forms of debauchery."

Oh dear. Sinfulness and debauchery is also what caused the 9/11 massacres, at least in the opinion of a few rabid fringe religious wingnuts. Even the hurricane Katrina was caused by debauchery, one of them argued. It's not a good idea to make the god of the wingnuts angry, because he tends to strike rather indiscriminately.

Debauchery is such a delicious word. It's probably sinful to enjoy saying it, too, though I think people blaming all bad events of this world on debauchery spend too much time thinking about it...

Kern and friends are a little bit like those medieval folks who practiced self-flagellation to stop the angry god from raining down black death. Except that it's not their selves these Oklahomans appear to want to flagellate but someone else.

|

Get Thee To A Nunnery! 



This sounds like fun:

The Vatican is quietly conducting two sweeping investigations of American nuns, a development that has startled and dismayed nuns who fear they are the targets of a doctrinal inquisition.

Nuns were the often-unsung workers who helped build the Roman Catholic Church in this country, planting schools and hospitals and keeping parishes humming. But for the last three decades, their numbers have been declining — to 60,000 today from 180,000 in 1965.

While some nuns say they are grateful that the Vatican is finally paying attention to their dwindling communities, many fear that the real motivation is to reel in American nuns who have reinterpreted their calling for the modern world.

You have to read the whole article to realize that American nuns are treated here as if they had done something really bad. Something like continuous child molestation. Interesting, isn't it? Pope Ratzo and his boyz are gonna get those damned women under control, I think. For instance:

The second investigation of nuns is a doctrinal assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, an umbrella organization that claims 1,500 members from about 95 percent of women's religious orders. This investigation was ordered by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is headed by an American, Cardinal William Levada.

Cardinal Levada sent a letter to the Leadership Conference saying an investigation was warranted because it appeared that the organization had done little since it was warned eight years ago that it had failed to "promote" the church's teachings on three issues: the male-only priesthood, homosexuality and the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church as the means to salvation.

...

Mr. Briggs said of the various investigations: "For some in the leadership circles in Rome and elsewhere, it's a piece of unfinished business. It's an effort to bring about a re-establishment of a very traditional, very conservative set of standards for what convent life is supposed to be."

Emphasis mine. Maintaining gender hierarchies is hard work. Hard work.

|

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Tell Burger King to shove it (by Suzie) 



Please see Pam Spaulding's smackdown of a Burger King ad that ran in Singapore, with a "seven incher" headed to the open-mouth of a pornified woman. The link includes where to write to complain.

I've seen this phenomenon in other countries, where U.S. companies feel free to run much more sexist ads than they would here. I also find it interesting that the woman is white and blond since this ad was produced for the local market. Although Singapore is a multiracial society, people of European descent are much less common. It may be more acceptable to have a Western-looking woman in the ad because of the stereotype that we're less moral. Of course, whites have a litany of Othered women who they consider less moral. Each society seems to have its own ideas about outsider men who are sexy (or scary) studs and outsider women who are just asking for it. Here's an unscientific sampling from Yahoo.
|

California Dreaming... 



Harold Meyerson has written a good piece on the basic reasons for California's current troubles:

The list of states -- Democratic and Republican, old economy and new -- is sufficiently diverse to dispel any notion that the fiscal crisis of the states is disproportionately the problem of one party or one region. It is, rather, hard-wired into the American system of governance, wherein virtually all the states have required themselves to produce balanced budgets even during depressions -- which means they must slash services and lay off workers even though such actions actually deepen the downturn.

But California is a special case simply because it's so big. Closing California's budget gap entirely through cutbacks in programs, as Schwarzenegger and the Republicans in the legislature propose, will deepen not only the state's recession but also the nation's. Fully 1 in 4 of the nation's underwater mortgages, for instance, are on California homes, and the effects of the governor's proposed cuts -- which UCLA's Anderson School of Business estimates will cause 60,000 state employees to lose their jobs -- will be to create a new wave of foreclosures and toxic assets on the banks' books. California accounts for 12 percent of the nation's gross domestic product and a disproportionate share of the federal government's revenues (and for every dollar that Californians pay to the feds, they get just 80 cents back in services).

Right-wing ideologues see the crisis as an opportunity to shrink government regardless of the consequences. Schwarzenegger is proposing to end welfare, not just as we know it but altogether, and to throw 1 million children off the rolls of the state's healthy families program. But the consequences of closing the deficit simply through cutbacks will be felt by more than the poor. Already reeling from $15 billion in cutbacks that the state put through in February, many school districts, including that of Los Angeles, have canceled summer school this year. Scholarships that enable students of modest means to attend California's fabled university system have been slashed. Most of the state's parks may have to be closed as well.

"Right-wing ideologues see the crisis as an opportunity to shrink government regardless of the consequences." Does that remind you of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine? And to think that once California had the best public school system in the country!




|

Oh Noes! We Can't Afford A Public Option 



So sayeth Senator Lieberman of Connecticut. The public option in health care is too expensive because the public would have to pay for it! Or it's not expensive enough so that it will pay the providers Medicaid-level low fees!

Which is it, Joe? You should make up your mind. And perhaps you should ask yourself who it is now who pays for the care the uninsured and under-insured get. Make a guess.

|

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!