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

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

I've Got Nothing 



Just some old bad poems. Sorry that they aren't funnier. I promised a cheerful post today and now I'm blocked. Heh:


Life

Your right foot on the right side
of the abyss
Your left foot on the left side
of the abyss
The abyss looks up your dress.


Love

Like a red woolen cloak
Around your neck
Tight
You shall choke

|

Writer's Block? 



Loquacious. The word for the day, meaning what I'm not much in person and what I'm very much in writing. Except today, perhaps, given that I don't want to write about the Polanski case and yet I feel I should. A teaching opportunity lost? Well, my readers don't need it, being smart and erudite already, and some others won't learn in any case. Is that depressing or what?

To return to the Word Of The Day, I wonder if using like a thousand words over and over counts as loquacious? Because that's what I do, pretty much.

|

What I'm Listening To Right Now 



This:




|

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

So Much For Democracy 



A conservative rag is now discussing a what-if? non-violent military coup as a way to solve the "Obama problem:"

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.

Then the author goes on to describe it in great degree, including all sorts of reasons why it might be a Very Good Thing (in a deranged world, natch) for the military to take over the government of this country.

Nuttery of the nth degree, of course. But that's no reason to ignore it.
|

More on Senator Ensign's Comments 



For preliminaries, read the post below. Essentially, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) argues that the United States health care system works better than those of any other comparable nations if we first take out car accidents and violent deaths.

There's some method to his madness, and it goes like this:

What is it that health care "produces"? If we can't give the output some measure, how do we know if the costs of a particular system are too high or not? Indeed, the whole discussion of high health care costs is always juxtaposed with the idea that the system isn't somehow producing what those high costs would make us expect.

Here's the deep-level problem: It's very, very difficult to measure the output of the health care system. Ideally we'd like to do that by measuring the health improvements or the prevention of worse health, for every single patient, and for both physical and mental health. Researchers do try to do this, but mostly they resort to something much cruder and ruder. Often this has to do with measures of mortality or morbidity. The reverse of these would of course be good things, and to the extent we can tie them to what the health care system does, we get a rough performance measure, right?

That's where Senator Ensign steps in. His point is that average life expectancy measures (which capture mortality in reverse) are very sensitive to anything that kills people at young ages. All such deaths cut off all those extra life years the average person would expect to have.

Because the United States has an excess death rate at young ages, when compared to other economically similar countries, the U.S. life expectancy figures look worse. That this excess death rate is due to factors (driving and violence) which are not something physicians and nurses can easily influence might mean that the system here isn't functioning too badly at all! Indeed, according to Senator Ensign, it functions just great (though uninsured Americans might disagree).

What he fails to state is that other mortality figures also show the United States in a bad light, and these are measures which cannot be explained away in the same way. The most important of these is the infant mortality rate (deaths of children up to the first year of life), and this rate has been shown to be fairly easily influenced by health care.

The whole topic of how to measure the output of health care is a large and cumbersome one, and soundbite-type discussions do it a disservice, sigh. At the same time, it's so very easy to draw a few pieces of data out of a political top hat and to come across as convincing. You do that by setting up straw-people left, right and center, and then you set them on fire.

The source of Ensign's ideas appears to be a study which controlled for traffic accidents and violent deaths but did not control for average incomes in a country. You get partial results with partial controls.

|

Ensign on Gun Accidents And U.S. Health Care 



This video really is quite hilarious:





I'm going to talk about Senator (R) Ensign's intended point later on, but let me first clarify what "gun accidents" are: Homicide. Of course gun accidents might also be included, but what he really talks about is violent deaths caused by guns of all types. It's not that Americans are somehow so clumsy when cleaning their rifles that they die like flies out of that. We are talking about intentional killing of people with firearms.

Ensign doesn't want to say that, because it would make the U.S. sound bad. Neither does he draw the obvious conclusion from the car accident death rates, which would be to have more public transportation. Fighting for something like that is not a Republican Thing.

Hence my guffaws when I watched the video. The topic itself is a serious one, but I'm rolling on the floor laughing when I hear a Republican defend the current health care system by saying that it works real well in a country where people drive recklessly and kill each other anyway.

|

Four Women 



Nina Simone, one of the geniuses of this world. There's much to think about in this song.




|

Monday, September 28, 2009

And Where Was The Mother? Hmh? 






I got an "aha!" experience last night while reading various stuff about Roman Polanski, to acquaint myself with the story about the drugging and rape of a thirteen-year old which lies behind the topic du jour in the American popular media. You want to go AHA!, too, you do, and I will show you how we can all do it.

But first I have to step back a little, to the previous case du jour, that one about the lead singer of the old band The Mamas&The Papas, John Phillips, whose daughter, MacKenzie Phillips, recently argued that her father had raped her one night when she was nineteen, and that they had later commenced a "consensual" adult incest relationship which lasted almost a decade.

I first learned about the whole story on Eschaton comments threads. It didn't take very long for someone to ask: "And where was Michelle when all this supposedly happened?"

Someone else then helpfully explained that Michelle Gilliam, one of John Phillip's four consecutive wives, was not the wife du jour when the presumed rape took place, nor the biological mother of Mackenzie. That let her off the hook!

So who should be strung on that hook instead? MacKenzie's mother, Susan Adams, who was John's first wife? Or Geneviève Waïte, his third wife, the one who was actually married to him at the time the presumed rape happened? Where did MacKenzie actually live? In short, which of the many available mother-figures is the one we should really hold accountable for the rape she accuses her father of?

I'm not certain if I had gotten enlightened without a case like that one, where there are so many possible mummies to choose from! Because the case showed me how women are always partially responsible for crimes committed against their children by others. Even when the child is already legally an adult! Miraculous, really.

That this happens a lot is pretty clear to me. If it's not clear to you, let me give you two recent quotes from articles discussing whether Roman Polanski should be extradited to the U.S. to face charges on "having sex" with a thirteen-year old girl many years ago. This one:

But there is more to this story. The 13-year old model "seduced" by Polanski had been thrust onto him by her mother, who wanted her in the movies. The girl was just a few weeks short of her 14th birthday, which was the age of consent in California. (It's probably 13 by now!) Polanski was demonized by the press, convicted, and managed to flee, fearing a heavy sentence.

And this one:

And it ought not to matter that Polanski is a gifted artist. In fact, it ought to be held against him. He seduced -- if that can possibly be the word -- the 13-year-old Samantha Geimer with all the power and authority of a 44-year-old movie director who could make her famous. If this did not impress the girl, it must have impressed her mother. She permitted what was supposed to be a photo shoot.

Bolds are mine.

This is all fascinating. Note that I'm not arguing that children shouldn't be kept safe. They certainly should. Indeed, we should only dole out good parents to all children, if it only were possible.

But I can't help seeing a very odd pattern in these stories: It's as if the accused rapist is just like a fox who was allowed into the chicken coop because a very careless and bad farmer left the door open! Nobody expects anything better from the fox, but the farmer should have known better!

So we look at all those mummy-figures who should have protected young women from the natural assaults of fox-like men, and we blame them for leaving the chicken coop door ajar.

Did you get any AHA!s yet? If not, here is the one I got. From the Wikipedia page on Nastassja Kinski :

At 15 Kinski began a romantic relationship with director Roman Polanski

This is a different young woman but the same Roman Polanski, note. Is it now Kinski's mother whom we should blame if fifteen is deemed a bit young for such a romantic relationship?

It goes like this: A fox goes around, raiding a chicken coop after a chicken coop, and we go on blaming the keepers for forgetting to close the doors. If you focus on each case separately it sort of makes sense. But once you see the overall pattern it does not make sense. At all.


----
Thanks to kmareka for links to the Kinski Wikipedia page and the HuffPO piece.
|

And Now : A Message From Your Friendly Religionist 






Pope Benedict has given a speech about Europe's need to stick to "her" Christian roots. Some snippets:

"Man needs to be liberated from material oppressions, but more profoundly, he must be saved from the evils that afflict the spirit," Benedict told the crowd from under a white canopy beside a 40-foot-high stainless steel cross. The German-born pope spoke in Italian, and his words were translated into Czech.

...

In his traditional Sunday Angelus blessing, Benedict urged the crowd not to forget their "rich heritage of faith."

"Maintain the spiritual patrimony inherited from your forebears ... guard it and make it answer to the needs of the present day," he said.

All that smell of manly aftershave might be the fault of the translation? Nope. I've stopped being so damn nice and always giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. Pope Ratzi doesn't even see the other half of humankind. I bet he secretly thinks of "Christians and their wives," for example.

Still, those red shoes are cute.

|

Sunday, September 27, 2009

No clemency for Roman Polanski (by Suzie) 



Roman Polanski was arrested yesterday in Switzerland, which plans to extradite him to the United States. He fled in 1978 to avoid prison, after pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, a 13-year-old whom he had drugged, who said she told him no. He had pleaded guilty to avoid a rape charge.

The Associated Press and other media seem sympathetic to him. As Elizabeth Switaj writes:
To read the news reports, ... you would think that his arrest was the injustice, rather than his crime ... As usual, when a wealthy man is held accountable for such crimes, rape apologism comes to the fore.
Foreign ministers for France and Poland say they will ask for clemency. But why should we give a pass to a child rapist, just because he has remained a fugitive for decades, thanks to rich and influential supporters. He has never taken full responsibility for what he did.

I've written about his case before.

ETA to take out the incorrect stuff.
|

The Need for Critical Mass (by Liz) 

There's a great body of research showing the need for a critical mass of women, at least 30 percent, in leadership. The data exists for Wall Street, academia and politics. There is strength in numbers. Critical mass shifts a group's influence from "special interest" to representative. It gives a voice to the underrepresented. It is the point at which groups can move from survival to growth. And yet, despite this data, women make up just 17 percent of the U.S. Congress.

People ignore data all the time. I understand that. But how can you ignore this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jj6pqajvB8

Senator Debbie Stabenow's response to Republican Whip, Senator Kyle of Arizona, last Friday is a perfect example of why we need more women in politics. Apparently Senator Kyl doesn't understand that maternity care is not a women issue. Prenatal care, ultrasounds, safe deliveries and postnatal care benefit all human beings, not just the females. Yes maternity care is critical for mothers. But it's also critical for fathers and babies -- both little girls and little boys. Sure, many men get that. But for those who don't, we need more women like Senator Stabenow to enlighten them.

On a related note: With permission from the Goddess, I want to invite you to visit http://www.helloladies.com/ starting Oct.1. I will be posting a story on maternity leave there this Thursday.
|

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Some Saturday Silliness 






A book I'm reading tells me how we can re-use plastic bags, milk jugs and take-out containers to create art and furnishings for the home. I'm a sucker for these kinds of stories, even though I know that there's no way I could furnish Snakepit Inc. with used pizza cartons, and even if I could, I'd have to acquire a second lair to use them all up and even then they'd keep coming.

The same with plastic bags. But just imagine that you can iron plastic grocery bags (or carrier bags) together to create a stronger material! And then you can make lampshades out of it! Perhaps even raincoats and umbrellas? Condoms? Carports? The possibilities are endless.

I love thinking about all the creative ways of becoming greener (though not the way I actually did become greener when I had that mold attack in the kitchen). What about creating a dildo which doesn't use any batteries? You could buy up old rotary eggbeaters and attach some sort of a furry finger to the end. Just turn the handle and sing happily!

There are other ways of greening love. For instance, if you happen to have a boyfriend/spouse/lover with hairy legs you could shave him/her every spring, like some people do with their dogs, and then you could save the leg-hair until there's enough to be carded and turned into skeins. Then you could knit him/her Valentine socks! Out of their own leg-hair! So warm and so very right.

And naturally you could do the same with your own leg-hair or armpit hair or beard. There might be enough for a cute little hat or something, if you live a very long time, even if you are skimpily furred. Remember that Victorian hair jewelry for grieving? We could expand on that field, too...

There's something wrong with my sense of what is funny.
---
Picture is of a sock I knitted. I knitted the other one, too, but it's not shown here. They are twin socks, so there's no point showing both of them.

|

Friday, September 25, 2009

Go And Read 



Phila's Friday Hope Blogging. It's very important to look at the bright side of life, too, and his work is most excellent.

|

Surveying pop culture (by Suzie) 



That’s what I call watching television. For those interested in the fall’s new shows, do you have any feminist impressions?

I only watch shows with female protagonists. But that doesn’t guarantee a show is watchable, of course. Wednesday, for example, I caught the tail end of “Cougar Town” on ABC by accident, and I couldn’t avert my eyes, even though I had been forewarned by reading TV Guide:
The title is a play on words, as it refers to both the mascot of the show's high school and the amped-up sexuality [that] 40-something divorcee Jules Cobb (Courteney Cox) struggles to contain. It's not Simone de Beauvoir, but Jules' struggles have a slightly feminist, "old ladies like doing it too" vibe …
In the entertainment business, a woman in her 40s is an old lady, who could only be paired with a man in his 60s. How radical that a former model, once considered one of the most beautiful women in the world, might interest men in their 20s.

Rebecca Traister takes down the cougar concept. Jessi Klein talks about how it reflects men's fears of older women. Julie Klausner's review is hilarious:
What is funnier than a middle-aged woman who wants and enjoys sex? Literally nothing. It's like a dog wearing a sombrero!

Next up was “Eastwick,” also on ABC. I had hope because of Abigail Tarttelin’s review on Women & Hollywood.
The show is a re-imagining of the book and film The Witches of Eastwick for a modern audience, so hopefully won’t go down the semi-misogynistic route the book took …
Not as hateful as the book, but still, a man seems to be guiding their power. I don’t find his egotism and sexual harassment attractive, and I’m surprised by reviewers who find him sexy and charming. To cleanse my palate, I’ll have to rewatch “Practical Magic,” even though critics dismissed it, and the only people I know who like it are me, my sister and a witch who manages our church’s office.

This week isn't a total loss. "Dollhouse" returns tonight. And on Tuesday on CBS, I enjoyed “The Good Wife,” starring Julianna Margulies. The New York Times review says
it begins where sex scandals usually end: an errant politician expressing regret at a news conference while his shell-shocked spouse stands frozen at his side. … “The Good Wife” takes its cue from real life, not just the headlines, and is all the better for it.
The first episode covered a lot of feminist territory, including body image; homemakers who return to work outside the home; women mentoring other women; and younger men disrespecting older, female competitors.

The excellent British movie "The Politician’s Wife" provides another take on this situation.

ETA: Res Ipsa Loquitor suggests Judith Warner's piece on "Cougar Town."
|

A woman and her dog (by Suzie) 

This is Clifford with his owner. To me, the photo seems introspective, as both gaze into the distance. In reality, Clifford wants to run after someone or something, and his owner is keeping him close.
|

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Consumer Warning Labels? Yeah! 



This was Keira Knightley's 2004 movie promotion picture in the U.K.:





This is the same (sort of) picture used in the U.S.:





The latter is retouched, naturally. The breasts are an obvious change, but if you look at the faces etc. in the two pictures you spot other "improvements".

AA sent me a link to a proposal in France to provide warning labels in fashion magazines when pictures have been retouched to make the models in them look skinnier than they are:

Can fashion photos that have been retouched to make models look impossibly skinny pose a risk, say, to young, impressionable girls who see the photos and want to look like the models? Some French legislators think so.

About 50 members of France's Parliament have proposed a law that would require labels that say when fashion and advertising photos have been digitally retouched, the Telegraph reports.

I like that a lot. It doesn't stop the advertisers from retouching the bodies of models. It just tells the reader the pictures are not real.

Where else could we use such warning labels? They already exist on alcohol and tobacco products. By the way, I saw warning labels on tobacco products in Europe geared specifically to men, in the sense that some of them warned men that smoking might hurt their sperm count or the quality of the sperm. I don't recall such warnings here but then I haven't been looking for those. I do know that alcohol labels are either gender-neutral or aimed at women.

Of course you might argue that the health effects of alcohol and tobacco are more studied than those of unreal pictures. But if all you require from the labels to say that the pictures are retouched, that doesn't really matter. It's just information. And nobody could oppose giving consumers more information, right? Hmm.

Let's return to that warning label idea. Why not require it posted on Internet porn? Something like:

Professional Fuckers In Pretend Situations. Don't Try This At Home Before Consulting Sex Education Sites For Real Sex Information.

Or you could add health warnings when the acts shown may cause anal tearing or spread bacteria from the anus to the vagina or possibly spread STDs.

I don't see why anyone would oppose those, either. Hmm.

|

A Few Things Lumped Together Illogically 






First, women in Baghdad can now visit their very own Internet cafe. Whether segregated spaces really are a general step forwards is a question which can be fiercely debated, but because having Internet access at home is both precarious and very expensive, that cafe is good news for the women.

Second, you have probably read about how private health insurance has been able (in some states, at least) to use prior Caesarian sections or a history of having been the victim of domestic violence as valid pre-existing conditions when deciding on whether to offer a woman a health insurance policy and at what price. These demonstrate, by the way, why "insurance" is not the best way of financing health care.

Now Michelle Obama has made a national call to action on these grounds.

Third, a proposed general Breastfeeding Promotion Act ((H.R. 2819, S. 1244) would do the following:

The Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2009 (H.R. 2819, S. 1244) includes five provisions:

* 1) Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect breastfeeding women from being fired or discriminated against in the workplace.
* 2) Provides tax incentives for businesses that establish private lactation areas in the workplace, or provide breastfeeding equipment or consultation services to their employees.
* 3) Provides for a performance standard to ensure breast pumps are safe and effective.
* 4) Allows breastfeeding equipment and consultation services to be tax deductible for families (amends Internal Revenue Code definition of "medical care").
* 5) Protects the privacy of breastfeeding mothers by ensuring they have break time and a private place to pump (applies to employers with 50 or more employees, see text of legislation for details).

You can ask Congress to support it here.
---------
Pic from my family files. Kinda illogical.

|

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Today's Funny 



This is via maurs in Eschaton comments. From the Onion, a recent tweet:

BREAKING: Democrats Hoping To Take Control Of Congress From Republican Minority In 2010

So deep, so insightful, so --- right!

|

Who You Gonna Ask? 



A new survey tells us that Americans are really quite pleased with their health insurance coverage (I guess only those were asked who have insurance?):

The findings underscore the challenges facing Obama and Congress as they try to reduce costs in the unwieldy health care system and provide coverage to millions of Americans without insurance.

Although there is widespread agreement that changes must be made in the USA, a strong majority say they are satisfied with what they have and don't want it upended.

• Eight in 10 say they are satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of the medical care available to them and their families.

• Six in 10 say they are satisfied or very satisfied with the cost of the medical care for themselves and their families.

• More than half say rising health care costs such as insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are either no problem or a minor problem for them.

• Nearly two-thirds say reductions in what their insurance plan covers is either no problem or a minor problem.

"All people have heard are negative stories about the health care industry," says Robert Zirkelback of America's Health Insurance Plans. But "the vast majority of Americans are very satisfied with their health care coverage."

Here's the problem with surveys like that: The answers depend very much on whether you have actually needed to use your coverage a lot or not. Those whose families have been healthy will only judge the coverage in terms of the premia they themselves pay and any out-of-pocket costs.

It's only when you really need to claim expenses that you find how good the system is. So, strictly speaking, the survey should have had a separate section for that group. It is their answers which are most meaningful.

To think of a comparison, suppose that you get a warranty for your new car. As long as nothing happens to the car, you are probably pleased with the warranty. It's only when the car breaks down that you find if the warranty covers what it said.

The findings also reflect two other things. First, it's commonly the case that surveyed individuals rate their own situation as not so bad, even while agreeing that some wider social or economic problem is worrisome. For instance, a recession might be seen as a problem but not the respondent's own economic situation. This could be partly because even large calamities only affect some individuals.

Second, those who oppose any real health insurance change have been very good at their job of increasing fear about the impact of any changes. Thus:

Only two in 10 Americans say their health insurance coverage and the quality of the health care they receive will improve if a bill passes Congress this year, despite President Obama's promises to improve the system for those with and without insurance.

I must admit that I'm not even following what's happening to the reform proposal. It's beginning to look like those monsters from horror movies: made up of little square patches and nobody knows if there's a skeleton somewhere inside. Reminds me of the very complicated reform proposal of the early Clinton era. Which actually had some very good aspects in it, by the way.

|

On Porn, Sex And Pincushions 



It has been much on my mind because the recent let's-bash-women happiness study did not analyze the impact of the enormous increase on Internet porn on women's and men's happiness gap. And because of something Amanda (from whom I stole that pincushion part in the title) at Pandagon wrote recently:

With that in mind, I want to link this excellent post by Becky Sharper, who has a wonderful sense of irreverence in the face of people who are going to give you the least generous read imaginable when you suggest that perhaps porn isn't all roses and fountains of gold. I hesitate to open this can of worms, because when I pointed out that the facial exists in porn as a symbolic marker of female degradation, many, many, many people deliberately misread me, claiming that I said that coming on the outside was wrong, or that if any touched your face, it was wrong, or that you're a bad person if you like being degraded in bed. All I said was that it's funny to me that something that is overtly about employing the "this slut deserves to be humiliated" trope in porn gets to send its message to an audience that wants to hear negative things about sexual women, and the rest of us will pretend that they just didn't say that.

Even though, from my perspective, the implicit argument---that women who have a lot of sex, or with a lot of men are sluts who deserve humiliation---is anti-sex. In other words, for all the sex in porn, much of it adheres to the "family values" narrative, where a sexual woman is used up and deserves nothing but abuse. Being truly pro-sex, in my view, means believing that women who have sex, a lot of sex, or a lot of partners do not forfeit a single ounce of their dignity or humanity.

Becky notes that the heavy use of anal sex in porn has resulted in an uptick in anal sex in real life. And though I know a good half of the commenters will pretend I didn't say this: This isn't, in and of itself, a bad thing. Just like coming on the outside is a fine way to spice things up, anal sex also can be a lot of fun for straight couples in the right circumstances. But porn morphs rather mundane sex acts into tropes about hurting and humiliating women, and then those tropes are repeated in bedrooms for that purpose. The problem with this is that many of the women engaging in these deliberately humiliating behaviors don't get off on being submissives or being degraded. They're doing it just because they thing that's what sex is.

I repeat: like coming on the outside, there's a way to do anal sex that isn't about hurting, humiliating, and punishing a sexual woman. (If only I knew the secret number of times to repeat to avoid being misread!) There are entire excellent books about it, and whole lines of sex toys that exist solely to exploit the sensitivity of that area of the body. In fact, straight men can put things up their butt and like it, too! This is not being questioned. (I predict 5 comments before someone suggests I questioned this.)

But porn doesn't show anal sex in the pro-woman way that many practice it, where there's an attempt to warm you up, make you comfortable, go slow, and stop if there's any discomfort. Like Becky says:

Problem is, hetero mainstream porn isn't depicting the kind of careful, attentive interaction that makes anal sex pleasurable. In fact, in porn there's no attention paid to the woman's pleasure--or even her comfort--at all. The male actors just plunge in and start pounding.

Emphasis mine.

Isn't it awesome how anyone criticizing porn must now explain very carefully why that criticism is not being anti-sex? But Amanda is brave, so she does the necessary work anyway.

I have written about some of my concerns earlier, but they are worth repeating, especially as I'm a little bit clearer about what I don't like when it comes to the extremely wide-spread use of porn. Here's the list:

1. I worry that too many confuse porn images with real actual human sex, that especially young viewers of porn go away with the expectation that real sex will be like porn. Yet porn is called porn and not art, say, for the very reason that it cuts out everything but the purely instrumental use of another person (or persons) for the purpose of getting an orgasm. I'm sure many people can make that distinction, especially among older users of porn who have also had real-life sex. But what happens if porn images are, in essence, your education in sexuality? What if you grow up believing that women should enjoy sperm in their eyes, to be sexual beings?

2. Hence my concern over the male-centeredness of heterosexual porn. That market is geared towards men and the women in the porn are there to do things that will get men off. If some men like humiliating women in bed, then that's what the female porn actors pretend that they will like. No, you don't need to use lube before plunging into my anus (a vulnerable part of the body, by the way, in the medical sense). Yes, please, urinate all over me. And so on.

That you can find all kinds of porn, even feminist porn, doesn't negate this problem at all. Because if most men, including the very young men, watch male-centered porn (and not feminist porn, say) then that's what their idea of sex will become: Something in which women don't have to be asked what they want, and in which women who don't want anal plunging or sperm all over their faces are somehow anti-sex or frigid. Because the women in porn like it!

3. If I am correct about all this, the impact of porn might be to make both young men and women to equate sex with what goes on in male-centered porn. I don't know if I am correct, but I see something of this sort taking place in discussions about sex on the Internet (and in the insults on political comments threads: Swallow, bitch, swallow). To even suggest that what is being talked about is male-centered heterosexual porn and not sex in general labels you as an anti-sex prude.

To re-frame this in feminist terms: I worry what porn is doing to the way young heterosexual women learn about sexuality. Is it just a service you provide men? Suck a lot of cock, let them come on your face or in your ass? Even if this is not what your body actually likes to do?

|

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

A Recipe Post 



I decided that I deserve a break tonight so I'm going to write about omelets. Or rather, you are going to tell me how you make one of those instead of scrambled eggs, because I get the latter almost every time I aim for the former. Sometimes I get a crepe instead, which is not too bad. But an omelet is supposed to be all in one piece, right?, and fluffy and moist inside and so on. Not something like scrambled eggs or a very dark crepe.

You could also tell me what fillings make one of those into a full-and-balanced (NOT fair-and-balanced) meal. Or what you like to put in your omelets, if anything but air.

All this is very odd, because I actually make a mean souffle. It's not really worth making, given the time ratio of preparation to eating, and it still tastes like scrambled eggs. But I can make those. Not sure if I could actually end up with scrambled eggs should I ever try to make that recipe instead of those omelets.

|

An Odd Post 



Odd how some posts are much harder to write than others, just as running a marathon is harder than walking to the corner store. I'm not talking about the research that goes into some posts, though of course that takes time and energy, but about the sheer difficulty of some topics. They are like slippery eels you try to catch with numb fingers from the water, and yet you can see them all the time, quite clearly. Except that they are no longer where you saw them last when you make yet another weary attempt to catch them.

Some are slippery because they are complicated and many-layered and sneaky with the millennia of experience at avoiding the writer's traps. Others are slippery because they have been carefully oiled and buttered in the popular culture and in the heads of powerful numbskulls so that to show you the eel herself is almost impossible. You will also see the butter and the oil. In terms of feminist writing, for instance, any writing in the popular media brings out the hordes who tell us that men used to hunt and be warriors and bring home the food while women kept house in the cave, and that's why feminism is doomed. And to explain that none of that is actually a scientific argument amounts to trying to remove the oil and butter with just your wet hands. It can be done, but it takes a book, and numbskulls don't read books in the first place.

Yet other topics are exhausting because they are packed with pain and suffering, and to know that at least some will take the results of any writing as an open invitation to participate in an intellectual game of debate (are women capable of equality?) makes even the thought of touching on those topics torture. And just try to write about feminism without getting into those areas. Where my right to be regarded a human being with equal rights and respect is something one debates! It boggles the mind, it does. Isn't it great that I'm a goddess so I don't have to face that situation, ever? Mmm.

I'm going to take a walk and then I will write on either the confusion between sexuality and porn and how that confusion really is bad for women's lives or what is wrong with women who either quit working to stay at home or who don't quit working even though they should. On second thoughts, I think I'm going to write about recipes.

|

Then Today's Science on Girlz 



Feministe linked to this interesting article about how the brain can change because of how it is used, in ways which might end up leaving men and women, on average, with somewhat different-looking brains. Or perhaps not. The research all uses very small sample sizes so it's important not to make very strong conclusions, see?

That's never a problem the other way round, for some reason. When the first PET scan differences in women's and men's brains (in use) came out, a horde of essentialists wrote books about how girls should be kept in a large pink box until they turn 21 and how boys should be kept in a jungle until the same age. Then they should fuck. Read some of those lovely The Wonder of Boys/Girls books if you doubt me.

Anyway, I digress, as usual, and this is the point where loads of readers go elsewhere. Which is a pity, because that article indeed is fascinating. The author talks here about the straight gyrus, SG, an area of the brain which is believed to have something to do with social cognition and interpersonal judgment:

In other words, there does seem to be a relationship between SG size and social perception, but it is not a simple male-female difference. Rather, the SG appears to reflect a person's "femininity" better than one's biological sex: women who are relatively less feminine show a correspondingly smaller SG compared to women who are more feminine, and ditto for men.

This finding—that brain structure correlates as well or better with psychological "gender" than with simple biological "sex"—is crucial to keep in mind when considering any comparisons of male and female brains. Yes, men and women are psychologically different and yes, neuroscientists are uncovering many differences in brain anatomy and physiology which seem to explain our behavioral differences. But just because a difference is biological doesn't mean it is "hard-wired." Individuals' gender traits—their preference for masculine or feminine clothes, careers, hobbies and interpersonal styles—are inevitably shaped more by rearing and experience than is their biological sex. Likewise, their brains, which are ultimately producing all this masculine or feminine behavior, must be molded—at least to some degree—by the sum of their experiences as a boy or girl.

The point the author makes is a good one, however much she hedges her bets. Because you must hedge your bets when you write from this direction. When you write from the other direction you don't have to hedge.

At the same time, I find it fascinating how essentialist the labels themselves have become. So if it's not the female brain, then it's the female psychology patterns just happening to sit in a male brain. Or femininity. Of course it's circular to say that people who are better at social recognition and interpersonal judgment have larger SG areas than people who are not so good at social recognition and interpersonal judgment. But calling that "feminine" loads in something all feminists know has a value judgment (run for the hills, guys).

And that value judgment is exactly why I write about all this. The terms "female brain" and "male brain" are not two neutral and equal concepts. The former is what is used to argue that women really are better off when sequestered in their homes and when allowed to do only repetitive work (see the comments thread to that post and don't except great commenting) or in child-care. Men, on the other hand, are better at everything else. Surprisingly, social intelligence appears to have no place among the movers and shakers of this world. Presidents don't need it, psychiatrists don't need it and so on.

Until those underlying value judgments are made clear to all, research in this field will always be used to keep women subordinate. An important point, wouldn't you say?
|

Monday, September 21, 2009

A Little Game For You 



I just can't stay away from that Huffington Post comments thread. What a train wreck it is! There's something extremely nasty about the ease with which the woman-bashing starts and about the nasty types of monsters whose disgusting heads suddenly surface about the bloody waters. And then there's just the plain stupidity.

But to allow all that to happen -- well -- Huffington Post is to blame. So I removed it from my blogroll. Heavens now tremble in consequence.

You don't really want to think of any of this, I know. But let's play a little game. Let's pretend that we don't know what the happiness survey tells us about the period from 2004 to 2006, and that we only know women came across as somewhat happier than men in the early 1970s. Then let's see what happens when the 2004-2006 results come out in different possible forms:

1. Suppose we find that the results are unchanged from the early 1970s: Women are still somewhat happier than men. How would you use that to attack feminism, hmh?

You could argue that feminism didn't do anything for women! They feel the same although their lives are supposedly so much better! Feminism was wasted, and it is time to focus on men's unhappiness.

2. Or suppose that the results from 2004-2006 show that women are even more happier than they were in 1970s. What does that mean? It means that we are ignoring the poor, poor men who are getting increasingly less happy while we focus on just women and girls. Time to change!

3. What if the more recent results show that men have caught up or even bypassed women on the happiness ratings? What would we write then? Well, feminism obviously failed to make women happier so let's scrap it.

4. Even absolutely equal happiness figures for men and women in 2004-2006 wouldn't do, because they would show a relative drop in female happiness. Thus, feminism failed again.

There you are.

|

Then For The Fuzzy-Wuzzy Post Of The Day 



Happy stuff, yanno. First some box turtles which celebrate all things snake goddessy. Photo credits go to FeraLiberal and 1Watt, Hermit, tho I forgot to write down which pic is due to which photographer.







Then we have FeraLiberal's Pippin, taking her proper place among the divine icons.





Last, but not least, two canines. The first one is in fact named after happiness:





And the second one is happily snoozing away. Pic due to 1Watt, Hermit.


|

I Haz Teh Sadz 






Because of that crappy post at Huffington Post and the whole idea that women are now terribly unhappy because feminism failed them. Don't make the mistake of thinking that this isn't what our Arianna is selling us. She's very unhappy herself, because she is running a website rather than washing floors back at home. But getting more clicks at the expense of feminists is well worth the tears she sheds.

And then innocent, happy goddesses like this one must put their waders on and squeeze a clothes-peg on their pretty noses and then wade through comments where assholes go on sidetracks about wanting to buy a slave-wife in Ukraine because American uppity women are impossible to cope with. Oh! And where a Progressive Guy (our brother, he is, you know) tells us that he is progressive but feminism has been a disaster because of that nature bidness. It determines what weak-and-feeble wommenz can do, though for some odd reason it puts no limits on what men might do. So yeah, he's all for equality but only among penises/penii. And of course we are told that wommenz are just basically silly critters and bitchy, too. Well, most of the comments weren't like that, but almost all of them assumed that the happiness of women is in a crisis! Crisis, I tell you!

OK. I lied to you. I don't have teh sadz. I have the Killing Rage. For the above reasons and also because of this:

1. People who don't get statistics should not interpret them. Even to sell books or to attack feminism. In particular, it is important to understand that funny little sign: %. When the number that precedes it is not 100, you shouldn't say ALL women or ALL men. You shouldn't even imagine it.

Just to put that into the proper perspective, Mark Liberman at the Language Log shows us some of the raw data on happiness that all this is about for selected years:




















In the responses for 1972, 1973, and 1974, the overall proportions were:
GenderVery HappyPretty HappyNot Too Happy
Male31.9%53.0%15.1%
Female37.0%49.4%13.6%





















In the responses for 2004, 2006, and 2008, the proportions were:
GenderVery HappyPretty HappyNot Too Happy
Male29.8%56.1%14.0%
Female31.2%54.9%13.9%



Isn't it interesting how something like that so quickly turns into: WOMMENZ ARE SAD! FEMINISM FAILED TO MAKE THEM HAPPY! LET'S CANCEL FEMINISM!

Mmmm. I want to thank Professor Liberman for also making available the actual study of this gender gap in happiness. You can read it, too, and you might write a little note for yourself about the fact that the study has no variables reflecting the introduction of pornography, for instance. Or any other cultural variables which might hit women differently from men. Stuff like the average weight of female and male fashion models. I'm sure you can think of other interesting variables which might relate to this question should you not wish to attack feminism with it.

The authors, Stevenson and Wolfers, analyze the time trend in responses of the above type while controlling for various economic, sociological and demographic factors. Their main conclusion is that they cannot really explain the so-called gender gap in happiness by any of the measures they test out, except that women appear too be less happy with their financial situations than men. Most importantly for the purposes of bashing feminism, stay-at-home wives are no happier than those who work. From page 6 of the pdf:

In section III we explore these trends by demographic group, finding that the relative decline in women's well-being is ubiquitous, and holds for both working and stay-at-home mothers, for those married and divorced, for the old and the young, and across education distribution.

Emphases are mine, and I added them for the following reason: If all those blame-feminism voices were correct then the happiest women would be those whose lives were most like the lives of women forty years ago. That would be stay-at-home mothers and women with less education. But that is NOT what the study found. Indeed, whatever it found appears to apply across almost all women.*

That finding is important more generally, because it deflates the anti-feminists' sails about women not wanting to succeed in the hurly-burly wars of high offices. It's not about the uppity women in the corner office we talk about here but a general (albeit very small, so small as to be almost invisible) trend across all women.

I probably should repeat here: NO! NOT ALL WOMMENZ HAVE TEH SADZ!

I might also remind Stevenson and Wolfers of their responsibility to correct faulty interpretations of their data. They may have no such legal responsibility but they certainly should have an ethical responsibility to do so. I'd also urge them to redo the analyses with some porn variables included. Oh, and to consider the possibility that what women are 'allowed' to state has changed over the time span of those surveys, what with television etcetera showing new behavior patterns to more and more women and men.

2. Here's the second reason for my Killing Rage: I went out this weekend and visited the fair state of New York. Do you know what I saw there? Women everywhere! Indeed, I started worrying that I somehow got this whole thing wrong! Surely people wouldn't write crap like that about the largest group of human beings? Surely not?

How the fuck did this happen? When did women become something like breakfast cereal? Something to be ranked in taste tests, improved upon, studied? And almost all of that as if women weren't real human beings.

I doubt I can convey that sudden feeling I had. It's such a contrast to think of crap like this topic and then to actually SEE people, to realize that women are not some monkeys kept in the basement lab somewhere (though we shouldn't do that to monkeys, either), to be studied and written up later on. Women. are. the. majority. And yet where's the power that should go with that?

Or to put it in reverse: Where are all the studies about poor men and what ails them? I get at least one thing a week about what ails poor women, too many to even cover on this here blog. I think we have been far too fucking nice for far too long, and that's why our lives can be dissected, our hides can be cut out and inspected with a magnifying glass. When others criticize our very being, our right to exist, if you like, we join in and politely argue back. Or even agree half-way, so as not to make anyone angry. Please, may I continue to exist if I stay in this corner vewy qwuietly?

3. The final reason for my rage is that this is your usual let's-make-a-mountain-out-of-a-molehill because everybody loves bashing feminism! We are going to get all the creepy crawlers leave their sewage pipes and come and comment on our posts! We are going to have so much misogynistic fun! Never mind fairness and justice and boring crap like that. If women are sad because they were let out of their cages let's just put them back in their cages and lose the key this time!

And note that as I said before the very same arguments would have been presented if the trend showed men becoming progressively less happy. It would be the fault of feminism, just as boys' troubles at school are the fault of feminism. Note that anything but absolutely equal happiness figures would give the feminism-bashers an edge. Well, some would argue that even those will work, because at first glance the 2004-8 figures ARE roughly the same.

It is always the tail that wags the dog when it comes to questions like this one.


----
*Across a fairly large number of industrialized countries. A few countries provided inconclusive evidence. The U.S. exception is African-American women who came across as less happy in the earlier surveys than African-American men and whose happiness responses have risen over time.

Thank you for AndiF for the links to the Language Log.

|

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Doomsday Scenarios (by Phila) 

A recent editorial in The Lancet argued that increasing access to contraception and family planning information in the developing world would be a sensible way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and making these populations less vulnerable to climate effects that are expected to pose a particular threat to the poor.

Betsy Hartmann and Elizabeth Barajas-Roman aren't thrilled with this idea, and so they've come up with ten reasons why population control is not the solution to global warming. Their strongest point is the most obvious one: industrialized countries comprise 20% of the population and produce 80% of the emissions, and focusing on resource use in the developing world is a distraction from that fact. (To be precise, they say that it "lets wealthy countries, corporations, and consumers off the hook." I wouldn't go quite that far, personally, but I do agree that it draws attention away from the real culprits.)

They also argue that "demographically driven family planning programs erode reproductive rights," and cite the "long and sordid history" of population control measures as evidence.

Which is fair enough. But suppose your goal is simply to use the climate crisis as an additional argument in favor of expanding existing, non-coercive programs, and overturning laws that limit access to contraceptives and education? In other words, what if you want to pressure restrictive governments to increase freedom of choice, instead of pressuring individuals to limit their offspring?

As far as I can tell, that's not really acceptable either.
Most population and environment groups insist that they are against coercion, and maintain that linking family planning and climate change is a win-win solution for women and the planet. The reality is closer to lose-lose.
That confuses me, somewhat. As do some of their other arguments. For instance, they say that "the population-climate change connection bolsters anti-immigrant agendas." As an example, they point out that anti-immigrant activists could argue that "immigrants should remain in their home countries where they consume less energy." But that's not an argument about population growth per se; it could be made whether a given population is increasing or decreasing.

More to the point, if we have to refrain from making arguments that might be seized upon by anti-immigration activists, we may as well sew our lips shut. That subculture, like so many others on the far right, will twist virtually anything into an argument for their agenda (when they're not simply making stuff up).

The next few arguments are similar, in that they focus primarily on the risk of racial stigma and stereotyping. The concern is that family planning measures undertaken for the "wrong" reasons will demonize people living in the Global South, contribute to the militarization of immigration enforcement, and so forth. But like the example above, some of these problems aren't clearly linked to the environmental rationale for family planning. I completely agree that portraying "climate-displaced people as a dark and dangerous horde of violent migrants rather than human beings with human rights has profoundly negative consequences." But I'm not convinced that this is an inevitable outcome of all environmentally minded family-planning projects.

It's reason #8 that really puzzles me, though.
Historically, the U.S. environmental movement often has succumbed to apocalyptic thinking. Doomsday scenarios of population outstripping resources exemplify this philosophy.
First, this isn't a "doomsday scenario," but an elementary fact: natural resources aren't limitless, and people are using them faster than they're being replaced. Second, if you're going to object to doomsday scenarios and apocalyptic thinking, you may as well make the same complaint about climate change itself. Treating the concern that population will outstrip resources as "alarmist," while calling climate change "one of the most urgent problems of our time," isn't really coherent...especially since climate change is expected to affect the availability of resources. On this point, I'd have to side with The Lancet.

I think what bothers me most about all this -- besides the fact that there's no consideration of the possibility that some people in the Global South may actually understand the environmental issues better than "we" do, and welcome environmentally focused family planning programs for that very reason -- is that it falls into the classic left-wing trap of giving racists and reactionaries de facto veto power over your options. Just as Obama was destined to be called a communist no matter how mild and business-friendly his "reforms" turned out to be, people who work for reproductive freedom and gender equality and environmental justice in the developing world are inevitably going to be called babykillers and eugenicists and cultural imperialists by people who oppose those goals. And just as inevitably, racists are going to demonize climate-displaced people and immigrants, whether you give them an "excuse" to do so or not. These aren't possible outcomes to be avoided through careful framing of the issues, so much as the ancient dirt in which we're obliged to stand our ladders.

Which is why it seems to me that the ultimate measure of a specific tactic should be whether it will actually reduce suffering and save lives, not whether it gives a bunch of reactionary thugs an opportunity to say the hateful things that they're going to say no matter what. It's one thing to distrust how a specific government or NGO would go about making an environmental case for "population control"; I share that concern, absolutely. But unless I'm misreading them, Hartmann and Barajas-Roman are arguing that we must not make this connection, period, whether it's in support of coercive or non-coercive policies. And I can't help feeling that this is something of an advance capitulation to extremism, as well as a luxury that neither family planning nor climate activists can necessarily afford.

I'm very interested to hear what other people think.
|

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Yet Another Angry Post 



Huffington Post is running a series about a gender gap in happiness. Women are less happy than men, according to its male author, but he will tell how women can be happy, too! Let me guess: Probably by buying his book. Well, it certainly can't be by imitating whatever the guys are doing even though it seems to work for them, right?

Then you get thousands of comments on the post and quite a few of them suggest that one can't fight biology and that feminism is the cause for women's unhappiness (which means that the happiest women in the world would be found in Afghanistan). That one of the graphs in the post shows that young women are happier than young men is ignored in that discussion altogether.

Then think of this scenario: If Huffington Post was running a series about a reverse gender gap in happiness, with men coming out as less happy, don't you think feminism would be one of the popular explanations for that one, too? I'm pretty sure of that. Feminism usually IS the favorite culprit for everything, including silly studies of something as hard-to-define-measure-and-compare as happiness.

P.S. I could do a proper post on what's wrong with the initial post in that series, on the sources used, on the methodological difficulties one faces in research of this kind, and on the odd setup of the whole series (because we could equally ask what makes men happier if that's what we believe to be true). But mostly what makes me unhappy is crap like this and the ponderings that go along with it. Women are from Venus, Men from Mars! That they ever interbreed is your fucking imagination.

|

Friday, September 18, 2009

Purple trees (by Suzie) 

My thanks to Anthony McCarthy, who thought I might like the art of another Maine resident, Arla Patch. He was right. I find it gorgeous and evocative.

This work, made of polymer clay, is called "Ferns and Purple Trees." Arla writes: "Once in California, I saw a huge purple tree in full bloom. I've never forgotten it."

I don't know what kind of tree she saw, but I love the jacarandas blooming in spring in Florida. As fall approaches, we can talk about spring, can't we?
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

This is a yellow crowned night heron sunbathing, courtesy of Peter.

I've never had any use for sunbathing, and I'm eagerly awaiting sweater weather.
|

Clergy sexual misconduct (by Suzie) 



Y, a married member of the clergy, asked X, a young widow, to help around the church. He grew closer until the intimacy became sexual. Her love would help him do God’s work. The abuse continued for a number of years, until she finally broke free from him and left the church.

She is a feminist, one of the sharpest women I know. Once, her Christian faith mattered to her. Once, she trusted clergymen.

Y's superior investigated charges that he had had inappropriate relationships with female parishioners. He denied wrongdoing, and switched to a different denomination, taking many of his parishioners with him. Newspapers printed praise because accusers weren’t known or declined to speak.

X filed a complaint in ecclesiastical court. The process exhausted her. Y was found guilty of misconduct in his former church. He remains at his current church, and neither newspaper has written anything.

He was divorced by then. He married a parishioner who had moved to his current church from the old one, where she had defended him against accusations.

X was one of the participants in the largest national study of clergy sexual misconduct (CSM) with adults, released this month by Baylor University's School of Social Work.
The study found that 3.1 percent of adult women who attend religious services at least once a month have been the victims of clergy sexual misconduct since turning 18.
This isn’t 3.1 percent of all women, only the ones who attend services regularly. The study focused on Christians and Jews, and many members of churches and synagogues do not attend every month. The study also notes that many victims give up religion. The abusers are mostly men.

CSM, the study notes, “refers to a religious leader's sexual overture, proposition, or relationship with a congregant who was not his/her spouse or significant other.”

What if a woman throws herself at her pastor?
[I]t is the responsibility of the religious leader to maintain safe boundaries. … Because of the power the leader holds and the attachment of congregants to their leaders, the congregant has much less power to say "no" to sexual overtures, rendering the concept of "consent" virtually meaningless.

Many people - including the victims themselves - often label incidences of clergy sexual misconduct with adults as "affairs." In reality, they are an abuse of spiritual power by the religious leader.

[T]he Baylor team has been working to outline possible initiatives designed to identify and prevent CSM, and draft model legislation to make CSM illegal in the same way that relationships with patients and clients are illegal for other "helping professionals" including doctors, lawyers and mental health practitioners. At present only two states - Texas and Minnesota - have legal statutes in place to guard against CSM.
I wish liberals like Dan Savage would get that clergy, even if they are single, are not supposed to hit on congregants, even if they are adults. Perhaps you believe, as Savage does, that this is one more reason not to attend church. But the issue of people abusing power won't be solved so easily.
------------
I’ve written about clergy sexual misconduct before.
------------
ETA comments from X: "It's a whole separation-of-church thing," she says, explaining why lawmakers have made it illegal for mental-health counselors to have sex with patients but not spiritual counselors.
|

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Today's Odd Statistics 



I have very low commenting numbers (though absolutely stellar commenters). I can no longer remember what the percentage of blog readers might be who regularly comment, but it's fairly low. Something around 10-15%. I calculated a snapshot from this blog yesterday and came up with something around 1.7%. The calculations are iffy, natch, and the whole thing one of those where I ask if it matters or not. But I wanted to ask you if there are any who would like to comment but don't and if the reason for that is something I could fix.

|

The Boyz Talk 



So very odd that Pat Buchanan, that icon of virtue and respectability, gives a pass on "boy talk." Watch for yerselves:





It's all minor, natch. Our Pat says much worse things about women, including how we are single-handedly (and while selfishly pursuing careers) destroying the Western Civilization. Which civilization is a glorious thing. It even includes an allowance for boy talk! But not one for uppity women.

Or girl talk, I bet. Like I wouldn't be allowed to compare Pat's nose to a bag of potatoes or to wonder what that might presage about his other body parts.

|

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

A Short Book Suggestion 



When you want one of those nice couple of hours with a sweet and thoughtful book read Terry Pratchett's Nation. It is intended for young adults but you can dig deep enough inside you if you don't have a real one to share it with. It's not a book of his usual Discworld and it's not quite fantasy, either. But it's one of those books which feed your honor-and-hope storage tanks.

Oh, and it's this post that is short, not the book.

|

Band-Aid 






Ezra write about the co-op part of the Baucus plan, the idea that every state should have a co-operative health care provider. That sounds a little bit like a public option in disguise, but it is not. It's a band-aid added to one of those many, many sores our current health care system has. Ezra:

The co-ops can only compete in the small group and individual markets. That is to say, if the co-ops prove effective, and The Washington Post would like to offer co-op coverage as an option to its workers, it can't. The co-ops are not allowed to contract with large employers, which is to say, they can't compete with private insurers in the largest market, and they can't get the purchasing power that would come from a serious foothold among corporate customers.

Note that excluding the co-ops from the large employers means that they don't get as good risk spreading as the already-existing firms which are allowed to sell to large firms, small firms and individuals. Note, also, that writing one policy for 10,000 people is a lot cheaper, per policy, than writing a separate policy for each individual policy applicant. Finally, it's likely that the average risk is higher in the individual policy market, because if you are not well enough to work that's the one market you can still go for a policy (unless you are covered by some existing government program).

For all these reasons the co-ops have several strikes against them even before they are created. It's like putting a band-aid on something that really needs draining and antibiotics.

|

Eve Teasing 



That's what groping and pinching and verbally harassing women is called in India. Such an odd term, that "teasing". It negates the aggressive and I've-got-power-over-you aspect of the practice and suggests that it's all just harmless teasing, and if you don't go along with it you have no sense of humor or something.

You may notice from the humorless paragraph above that I have indeed been "Eve teased" myself in the past. It's unpleasant, a little bit frightening and just like an extra cost to going to places. Where's my bag, books, tickets, money? Oh, and where's my armor and the second pair of eyes I need in the back of my head? Check. Ready to go then, sigh.

This type of sexual harassment is one of those life experiences which is completely different for those of us who have memories of being a frequent target of it and for those who never practice it and never get exposed to it. Note that when you get repeatedly groped, pinched or commented on you start thinking of going out under certain circumstances as a run through the gantlet.

You start suspecting all men, for example, because that's the way you stay safe. In the subway you find a carriage with no men who look like they might cross your boundaries and exhibit their power to rank you, try to stand against the wall, not so that your butt is accessible, or try to sit next to another woman. And always, always, avoid groups of young men, because they are the very worst.

I should probably draw a distinction between the kind of sexual harassment I'm describing and men paying compliments with their eyes at a woman or otherwise politely showing distant interest, because if I don't someone will assume that I'm talking about the latter kind of behavior. Nope. I'm talking about an invisible hand pinching your butt or boob so hard that you get tears in your eyes, about someone telling aloud what they would do to you in bed if they could, about the angry reaction of construction workers when you walk past NOT reacting to their comments. You see, you don't have the right to be silent and scared. You should have smiled!

It's ultimately all about who has the power to cross whose boundaries, and who has the right to interpret the event. Was it all just a nice compliment or what? And if other women find all that a compliment, what's the matter with you? (I already hear the little screechy voices telling me to write about something important and to get that sense-of-humor changed at the store as it obviously doesn't work.)

In any case, female commuters in some parts of India are now offered all-women trains to get around the common practice of Eve-teasing:

As the morning commuter train rattled down the track, Chinu Sharma, an office worker, enjoyed the absence of men. Some of them pinch and grope women on trains, or shout insults and catcalls, she said. Her friend Vandana Rohile agreed and widened her eyes in mock imitation.

"Sometimes they just stare at you," said Ms. Rohile, 27.

Up and down the jostling train, women repeated the same theme: As millions of women have poured into the Indian work force over the last decade, they have met with different obstacles in a tradition-bound, patriarchal culture, but few are more annoying than the basic task of getting to work.

The problems of taunting and harassment, known as eve teasing, are so persistent that in recent months the government has decided to simply remove men altogether. In a pilot program, eight new commuter trains exclusively for female passengers have been introduced in India's four largest cities: New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Calcutta.

So you get "separate-but-equal" as the solution. That one never ultimately works, because of what I spoke about before: People who don't have any experience of Eve-teasing, including men who don't engage in it, see themselves as unfairly treated. Suddenly there are these trains with space and clean seats, and only women get to go in! So unfair:

"Even on this train," Ms. Gahlot continued, "men sometimes board and try to harass the women. Sometimes they openly say, 'Please close the Ladies Special.'

"Maybe they think the government is helping out women and not men," she added.


|

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The Rich Have It Hard, Too! 



So goes this article about the recession and the very wealthy:

Observers say it is part of a far broader campaign in the wake of the Great Recession -- including curbs on bankers' pay and a rigorous global hunt for tax cheats from Switzerland to Singapore -- that is suddenly putting the world's wealthy on notice.

In the United States, taxes on the richest Americans are one option for covering the cost of offering health care to the 46 million who are uninsured. The Obama administration has vowed to press forward with its ambitious agenda without raising income taxes on families earning less than $250,000. But the president's current budget calls for a rollback of the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans that would increase their top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, or the same as in the Clinton era.

In India, the government has launched an effort to track down billions of dollars in "black money" -- or hidden profits of the rich. In Germany, Parliament in July passed a law requiring the affluent to provide more information on the locations of their assets. Since the economic crisis began, there have been fresh tax increases for high-earners in the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Italy, Belgium and several other countries.

Analysts say the action marks the first time since before the Reagan-Thatcher era of the 1980s -- when trickle-down economics led to decades of lower tax rates on the wealthy -- that the world's moneyed have faced this level of pressure from such a wide array of governments. It happens as cash-strapped governments -- even as the global economy begins to recover -- are scrambling for scarce sources of revenue to fund expensive stimulus packages, combat the recession and expand services to the less fortunate.

There has been "an absolutely direct correlation between taxes and the financial crisis," said Jon Terry, head of reward practices at Pricewaterhouse Coopers in London. "If there was no financial crisis, I would have been surprised if taxes would have increased at all for high-earners."

Given the gap between the rich and poor that widened globally during the excess of recent years, many see the wealthy as the fairest, most likely source for funds in hard times. In the case of tax cheats, the campaign to root them out, many argue, is long overdue.

But for some, it is beginning to feel like governments are piling on when it comes to the rich -- who, through lost real estate and stock values, have already shed untold billions.

I bolded that last paragraph for you because it is an example of two kinds of false equality: of the journalistic type where you put 'some say' into one argument and 'others say' in the next argument, and of the real type where the hardships of the rich are somehow equated with the hardships of everyone else. Or even with the hardships of the poor.

Both of those are false equalities. The journalistic one ignores the possibility that there might be actual facts over and above the statements of the two sides and that one side might in fact be correct (such as in 'some say the earth is round, others argue it is a pancake with maple syrup'). The real one ignores what it is we compare when talk about the rich and the poor as groups, and that is the fact that the rich have lots more wealth. If they don't have it, they are then called the poor, too.

My guess is that at least some of these pity-the-rich articles think of the wealthy as a group which should have the same rights and duties as any other group, say, the poor or the middle class, and that it's unfair we demand more from one group than the other groups. Note that this is NOT about the rights and duties of the rich as individual human beings which are obviously set to be equal with those of all other individual human beings. It is about the rights and duties of the wealth the rich hold, ultimately:

Thus, the mountain of money a rich family has is deemed equal in rights to the few dollars a poor family has, and each of those wealth-units should pay equally towards taxes and government fees. This is what ultimately lies behind the flat tax thinking, especially in its extreme form where the recommendation is for a flat absolute-dollar-figure tax, a poll tax. Such taxes would have to be sized to be feasible for the poorest (in order to be the same for all) and the puny tax receipts they could provide for the governments would collapse the society altogether.

Even less extreme examples of demanding wealth-blind fairness in taxes lead to similar problems. Which is to point out that a mountain of money really is not equal to a small pile of pennies and shouldn't be treated the same.

Neither are the troubles of the ueber-rich the same as the troubles of the very poor or even the middle class earners. This is because to live at all requires a certain basic lumpy (that's a technical term) expenditure of money, and one can't really go below that sum and still survive. Just think of the question whether you could still live (in terms of basic survival) if your current income was cut to one half then one quarter and so on.

Similar considerations apply to money saved and invested for retirement. If that sum was just enough two years ago, it probably isn't enough today and retirement must be deferred. But someone who loses eight billion out of a sixteen-billion investment can still retire, you know, and quite comfortably.

So no, all piles of money are not created equal. The size of those piles does matter, because of that initial fairly fixed amount we all need to survive. And struggling for survival is not the same as struggling to adjust to a few more billions less.

|

This Is Funny 






Billionaires for Wealthcare are the new incarnation of Billionaires for Bush. I saw the group perform (at my expense, even) last summer. Sniff. They told I wasn't dressed well-enough to be one of them.

|

And What About The Alcoholic Daddies? 



This article is typical of a whole genre of something which actually affects men at least as much as it affects women or more, but which is written to go all oh-my-god-mummies-are-bad. I have seen similar reporting on traffic accidents and women as well as general drinking and women. It's important to note that we don't get articles titled:

The secret lives of male alcoholics

Instead, we get either general articles about all alcoholics or specific articles about female alcoholics.

I must admit that this example of that genre seems to self-doubt itself from almost the beginning:

The numbers are troubling: An estimated 17.6 million adults in the USA are either alcoholics or have alcohol problems, according to the National Institutes of Health. By some estimates, one-third of alcoholics are women.

There you have it: By some estimates, one-third of alcoholics are women. What does that tell us about the other two-thirds?

Oh! I get it from the next quote: ONLY women hide their alcoholism and we know this because we get examples:

Yet if you were to ask a woman's friends and family if she has a drinking problem, they might very well say no.

When Paula Tokar, 26, told her friends she was getting sober and wouldn't be partying with them anymore, "They said, 'You seemed fine to us,' " says Tokar, now two years sober and living in Marshfield, Mass. That's because she'd worked hard not to hide her alcohol abuse. "I was doing the things many women do, hiding drinks around the house, hiding vodka behind the frozen veggie burgers."

This is such a crappy approach to a serious question. Men who are alcoholics also hide bottles, you know.

So why would these women (about one-third of all alcoholics) deserve extra attention, over and above the general attention alcoholics get from health topics writers?

I bet you can guess the answer: It has to do with mothers and their children, though once again, the article itself appears to doubt this odd argument:

Good mothers don't drink, and everyone says Schuler was a good mom, so she couldn't possibly have been an alcoholic. That's how the thinking goes, says Eleanor Schoenberger, 40. "Especially when it comes to mothers, there's such a strong inclination to believe 'she just wouldn't do anything like that,' " says Schoenberger, of Hanover, Mass. She writes a blog about being a mom in recovery and making jewelry at One Crafty Mother.

Schoenberger wonders if the national conversation would be the same if Schuler's husband, Daniel, had been behind the wheel when the accident happened. "The question would be, 'Where was the mother?' " she says. "A father who drinks is just as responsible for the welfare of his children, but the stigma isn't there."

Schwarzer, whose friend went into treatment and no longer drinks, says she won't be afraid of speaking up again. "Is politeness worth some kid's life? You convince yourself that it's just not that bad, but when a child's life is at stake, none of us should ever be that polite."

But do good fathers drink? ARE there any alcoholic fathers, living in the same household as their children and possibly driving them to places while inebriated? From the framework used here that doesn't seem possible! Either all men who have a drinking problem are single men who NEVER hit anyone else's child while driving drunk or childen are totally and completely the responsibility of women, not of men. And that means men's alcoholism isn't as worrying as the alcoholism in women.

I hasten to add that alcoholism is a serious problem and affects not only the sufferers but others around them. But to essentially argue that we should worry about women's alcoholism ONLY when those women are the mothers of small children gives women the same value as any other instrument people daily use. Why not worry about female alcoholism because we care about those women and the quality of their lives?

|

Monday, September 14, 2009

Happy Hour 



I'm borrowing that title from Eschaton, where it refers to the traditional cocktail hour. Here it's a snake tail hour. Or rather, a good opportunity to wonder about how very hard mathematics can be! The tea parties of the anti-Obama folks were ginormous! Ginormous, I tell you.

They also lasted over five years!

|

Guarding Our Hearts And Wallets 



Atrios makes a good point today:

Just adding on to Glenn's post, much opposition to the government actually doing anything decent for people comes from the idea that the government is going to take my tax money and give it to people who don't deserve it.

He goes on to note that carefully limiting benefits programs to certain "deserving" groups actually reinforces this view, while programs which benefit everyone are quite popular.

Atrios' point also explains why the people who fear the government are not as distrustful of big business. They think: "Sure, the firms are all crooks, but they steal other people's money, because I am smart and won't fall for their lies!" So it's a form of perceived self-defense to fight against the public option in health care. That is seen as benefiting The Other: the undeserving poor, minorities or uppity women or illegal immigrants. Or Someone Else! Not the person opposing the public option, even if she or he has no health insurance right now.

Yet Medicare, for instance, is extremely popular.

All this bears some thinking, because that atomization of the American society is not a pure accident. Keeping people in a state where they distrust all Others benefits some in power. Divide et impera.

The foundations for all this are much deeper, naturally. They come from the American history, the fast pace of immigration and the vast size of the country as well as the widely varying basic values.

|

And Good News Monday Post! 



I bet you didn't think I could write one of them, eh? Well, see how wrong you were:

A new White House Council on Women and Girls is assessing every government agency to see if its programs do enough to benefit women. The first senior adviser on domestic violence and the first ambassador for women's issues around the globe are developing programs to prevent violence again women at home and abroad. First lady Michelle Obama is highlighting women's achievements, helping families and pushing girls to succeed.

OK. It's not perfect, because we didn't get government-funded obligatory once-a-week abortions and shit. At least according to the Concerned Women of America:

Conservative women are unimpressed.

"Obama's policies reflect the views of hard-core abortion and feminist groups," says Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. "Considering the diversity of views among American women, it is insulting to assume that there is one 'women's view' and it is represented by liberal feminist activists. … Obama's choices reflect a stereotypical view of women who are abortion advocates who are dependent on government."

Check dependency:

Yup, I'm dependent on the government for running this blog, right?

Check hard-coredness:

OUCH!

More seriously, the Concerned Women and Christian Ladies Against Feminism and all other such anti-feminist groups are free to do their own thing in this new Feminazi country of ours. Honest. It's hard to believe, I know, but it's the truth. Because feminists do know that women (just as people in general, including men) have more than one view of their proper places in this world. However, if you think a little you will realize that the ideal country the Concerned Women and their ilk desire would not be equally tolerant of other views. So there.

I'd like that committee to focus specifically on whether the needs of poor women and girls are adequately met. Many of the relevant departments were left in a fairly bad state after eight years of Bush, and much of the wreckage was intentionally aimed at women and girls. Or so I think.

|

Today's Angry Post: Cowardice 



I'm fed up with the presumed view that feminists a) are suitable scapegoats for everything that has not yet been fixed in women's lives, b) provide fun caricatures for everyone to sneer at (armpit-hair plaited all the way down to their hairy calves) and yet c) are to clean out this society of all misogyny and contempt towards women, stat! (Like it should have happened yesterday and if it didn't, well, feminism obviously failed.)

Now that's some job description, isn't it? That a small handful of people are responsible for the overall well-being of all world's women. Yet feminists are your proverbial cleaning-women: Invisible until something bad has been spilled.

Hey girl! Come over here! What's that female blood doing in Aisle Four? Get your broom and start sweeping! And no, you don't get a paycheck for it. But we WILL blame you for the fact that the blood was there in the first place and that it wasn't already swept up. We will also blame you for the downfall of Western Civilization and the colonization of other civilizations! And no, you still don't get paid for it.

Which makes me wonder how the feminists of earlier generations were able to do so much damage, what with being those rictus-smiled caricatures with no power and no respect, really. They probably wove nets out of their armpit hair and caught those civilizations in the nets. Yeah, that must be the explanation.

But of course feminists are also totally in the wrong! They are fighting a losing fight against pseudo-science aiming to prove women's biological inferiority and against fundamentalist religions aiming to strip women of almost all agency. Poor misguided creatures.

Except, of course, when we are talking about that other kind of feminism: The kind which finds fulfillment and independence in the very acts of relinquishing them. So those feminists fight very hard for the women's right not to have rights. Or the third kind of feminism which is all about social justice for all. And it's easy-peasy to accomplish that goal without short-changing women. At all.

Mmm. I got carried away there. Just a little.

I was recently in a group of people where one person said something very nasty about women, and the women present all seemed to expect that I'd run in with my broom and my bucket. What with me being the feminist, yanno. It was, like, my job, right? So I decided not to say anything. And neither did anybody else. So it goes. Was that your freedom skipping by, ladies?

I smell cowardice.

I'm a coward, one of the biggest ever. My heart is in my throat every time I respond to sexist arguments, my palms sweat and I feverishly run over various martial arts moves in my head, just to be prepared for anything. But mostly I respond anyway, even with shaking knees and difficulty of breathing. Because the long-term alternative is worse, not only for me but for other women, too. Besides, I get another knot in my liver from every insult I have to swallow.

Which means that I cannot accept silence. Silence never kept anyone safe, as someone much smarter once said. Silence is interpreted as acquiescence.

But perhaps that's fine for many women and men? It could be. It could be that the Concerned Women of America have their be-ringed fingers firmly on the pulse of this era. (Though they are loud enough in their demands for no rights that their god didn't explicitly write down two thousand years ago. -- What makes them unafraid of being noisy? Could it just be that they are only fighting feminism, not the people who actually ARE scary?) Or it could be that second-class tickets are perfectly AOK for women on this train through life, that voices and clamor needs to be spent on more urgent needs.

I don't know. It just seems so ass-backwards to argue that something called feminists are wholly and totally responsible for the rights of the majority of people on this planet. As if liberation could be custom-ordered from some firm of cleaning ladies.

|

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Domestic Violence: A Pre-existing Condition (by Liz) 

For our recent 20 year college reunion, some old friends of mine planned a girl's night, a sleepover at a friend's home the night before the official festivities , so we could all have the chance to connect and catch up with each other in a small group. Most of the women who were invited keep in touch and are involved in each other's lives. I, however, hadn't spoken with many of them, outside of Facebook, in years.

Prior to the event, one of the friends called me. She wanted me to know, before our gathering, that another friend was going through a divorce and that this woman had been abused by her husband this woman's husband had abused her. The friend on the phone told me how shocked she had been when she first heard and how, out of all of our friends, she never expected NAMEWITHHELD to let this happen.

I was shocked to hear about NAMEWITHHELD and I was shocked by what my friend on the phone said. "She let this happen to her." I suppose none of it should have shocked me. After all, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence states that 1 out of every 4 women will experience domestic violence. And, was my friend's comment really that uncommon? Sadly, no.

It is so common to place the blame on victims. Even I, someone with some knowledge of abuse, have to monitor my language in order to place responsibility on the appropriate person. (Note my edit above.) In my friend's case, her husband was in jail for hitting her. He hit her. He abused her. He was arrested. He took the action.

But it will be my friend, not her soon to be ex-husband, who could be denied health insurance in nine states on the basis that domestic violence is a pre-existing condition. That's right. This from www.healthreform.gov. "It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition."

Surely, the insurance industry is looking at data like this from the American Institute on Domestic Violence:

• The health-related costs of rape, physical assault, stalking, and homicide by intimate partners exceed $5.8 billion each year.
• Approximately $4.1 billion is for victims requiring direct medical and mental health care services.

That's a whole lot of money.

But they are also most surely looking at data like this (also from the American Institute on Domestic Violence) that tells them this is a "woman's problem":

• 85-95 percent of all domestic violence victims are female.
• Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women.

And that, pure and simple, is a whole lot of misogyny.
|

Gulp 



I bought a fantasy book to read while traveling on the train. It's supposed to be all about elves and suchlike. But what do I read on page nine? This*

He kissed me again, conveying that need as his hands ravaged my body. My own hands slid along the smooth perfection of his bare skin, awakening my desire....

This is a half-elf woman making love with a guy who turns into a fox once in a while, and it gets lots more explicit. I know because I had to check all along the book to frown at those types of pages. Heh.

More seriously, this trend of combining sexual descriptions with fantasy was probably started by those vampire books I wrote about some time ago. It's a little weird, like buying a package with all your fast food needs satisfied: Elves? Sure, we've got them. Hawt sex? But of course!

I'm trying to rewrite the Lord of The Rings to go with the idea. Most sex in that book would have to be between guys, given the dearth of women in Tolkien's worlds.
-----
The book is Thorn Queen by Richelle Mead.

|

Saturday, September 12, 2009

The Secret (by Phila) 

If you're a woman -- and you must be, or you'd be bowhunting or watching porn instead of reading this blog -- you've probably spent a lot of time wondering what motivates you to have sex.

Thanks to important new research of some type, undertaken somewhere in Texas, the mystery is solved...for the moment. It seems that unlike men, straight women have sex for a baffling variety of reasons, which include extorting household chores out of their partners, extorting presents out of wealthy men, and yielding to male demands for sex in order to "keep the peace."

Science also informs us that while some women have sex out of pity, they're more often motivated by a selfish desire for something other than sex.
While it may not come as welcome news, some women have sex out of sympathy, with one admitting: "I slept with a couple of guys because I felt sorry for them."

But many have more selfish motives, with financial or material rewards a major factor.

In one survey of students, nearly one in 10 women admitted to "having sex for presents". Others said: "He bought me a nice dinner", "he spent a lot of money on me early on", "he showed me he had an extravagant lifestyle".
It's not clear how many "others" you have to add to "nearly one in 10" to get "many." But who cares? The important thing is that women are a bunch of goddamn gold diggers, by and large.

Changing the subject, did you know that some women pursue sex for its own sweet sake?
And rather than love or romance, for many women sex is just about fun.

Six in 10 university students said they slept with a male friend who was not their boyfriend. "Life is too damn short to be waiting four years to have sex again," one said.
With that strange quote, this article -- which is called "Secret's out: why women really have sex" -- ends as mysteriously as it began. Did any of the six in 10 women who slept with non-boyfriends do it for presents, or a nice dinner, or out of pity? We'll probably never know, though we can certainly speculate. The one thing we can be pretty sure of is that some many most women are deceitful schemers.

Don't let that color your impression of their survey responses, though. It's likely that they're telling the truth here, for once, since they're just confirming what the people who matter have always suspected. And besides, why would anyone lie about this?
One woman even admitted to having sex just so her husband would put the rubbish out.
If he were asked, her husband might admit that he puts the rubbish out just so he can have sex. But I suppose that wouldn't be nearly as interesting to the average reader...especially since the article is about women's convoluted psychosexual problems, rather than men's funny little quirks.

Besides, suggesting that the sexual division of labor might have some bearing on a lot of these "findings" would instantly transform the article from an informative look at current scientific research to a shrill feminist polemic. Which would be unprofessional, at the very least.

The article makes no sense at all, as journalism. But considered as a sort of ideological peep show, articles like this one do follow a certain lurid carnival-barker logic. Just like at some carnival striptease, the Mystery of Womanhood is revealed to the rubes with clockwork regularity, as often as the market will bear. And just like at a carnival, the mystery is as phony as the revelation. Still, as long as people continue to line up for it, it's as true as it needs to be.

So various adaptations to male demands are portrayed as a glimpse at the "reality" of female desire. And since reality can't be reduced to this portrayal, there's a nagging feeling, again, of some persistent mystery, and the whole cycle starts over: What are women really like? What do they really want?

One approach to the problem would be to consider the role that male domination plays in formulating these questions, let alone socially acceptable answers to them. But since a journalist can't acknowledge our culture's bone-deep misogyny without forfeiting the objectivity upon which all really serious people insist, whatever theory fits the available facts must be close enough to correct. As Sherlock Holmes said, "After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth."
|

Meanwhile, in Yemen 



The traditions about how to raise children are different:

A 12-year-old Yemeni child-bride died after struggling for three days in labor to give birth, a local human rights organization said Saturday. Fawziya Abdullah Youssef died of severe bleeding on Friday while giving birth to a stillborn in the al-Zahra district hospital of Hodeida province, 140 miles (223 kilometers) west of the capital San'a.

I am not trying to be flippant here. The story is horrible. But the contrast to my earlier post is so striking in some ways. What adulthood means varies enormously by culture. It's pretty easy to spot the extreme interpretations (marry off eight-year old girls or ask someone to supervise a party given by a 24-year old) but much harder to say what the golden mean might be, the age at which we can all agree a person has turned into an adult.

The above quote is not a good example of that because it's all intertwined with the inequality of women. But my recent travels made me more aware of the cultural underpinnings of so many of those values which are taken for granted within any one culture.

|

Hyper-Parenting 



The New York Times writes today about when children are old enough to walk to school unattended. Note that this article appears in FASHION AND STYLE! As if it was only of interest to women. That's an important clue to the society we live in.

So when can a child walk alone to school? The current cultural answer seems to be somewhere around the age of twenty-one. The beginning sets the tone:

TO get to school, the child leaves home by herself, proudly walking down the boulevard in a suburb of a small city in upstate New York. The crossing guard helps her at the intersection. She lives only a block and a half from school. Yet she walks by older children waiting with parents for buses to the same school.

She is 7, a second-grader, and her mother, Katie, hears the raised-eyebrow remarks: " 'Are you sure you want to be doing this?' " Katie said friends ask.

" 'She's just so pretty. She's just so ... blond.' A friend said, 'I heard that Jaycee Dugard story and I thought of your daughter.' And they say, 'I'd never do that with my kid: I wouldn't trust my kid with the street,' " said Katie, a stay-at-home mother, who asked that her full identity be withheld to protect her children.

There it is, in a nutshell. The pederasts and sickos are all out there, waiting for your child to be kidnapped and possibly murdered. There's nothing worse for a parent to think about, and the media certainly fans the flames of those fears. Every tragic event is in the news 24/7, and not only in the informative sense but in the emotional sense of what-if-it-happened-to-you? So we are pre-prepared to worry about child abductions, and as the article points out, the societal disapproval of parents who don't act according to that norm is enormous. At least in the affluent areas where one parent is able to chauffeur the children all day long (guess which one it usually is).

But here's the paradox: Pederasts and sickos are not that common and defending children against that possible danger by driving them everywhere might actually endanger them more:

The fear of abduction by strangers "has become a norm within middle-class parental circles," said Paula S. Fass, a history professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of "Kidnapped: Child Abduction in America." "We try to control our fears to the nth degree, so we drop our children off right at school. It's a confirmation that 'I'm a good parent.' "

In 1969, 41 percent of children either walked or biked to school; by 2001, only 13 percent still did, according to data from the National Household Travel Survey. In many low-income neighborhoods, children have no choice but to walk. During the same period, children either being driven or driving themselves to school rose to 55 percent from 20 percent. Experts say the transition has not only contributed to the rise in pollution, traffic congestion and childhood obesity, but has also hampered children's ability to navigate the world.

...


Critics say fears that children will be abducted by strangers are at a level unjustified by reality. About 115 children are kidnapped by strangers each year, according to federal statistics; 250,000 are injured in auto accidents.

I don't think anyone decided that it would be time for American parents to start reallyreally fearing strangers abducting their children, but that's how the way those cases are treated works out. The coverage is emotional, forcing the viewers all the time to experience this most horrible of events as something that might very well happen in their own families. But note that the danger can be avoided! And the emotional relief when you realize that! Just shepherd your children 24/7 until they can vote.

It is this type of hyper-parenting that has become the upper-middle-class norm. When you add to it the more and more common arguments for homeschooling you get something that a feminist blogger must address: We are making 'ideal' parenting (well, mothering, obviously) into a job that doesn't even fit within a 24-hour day. Nobody doing all that has time for anything else, and if that's what you are planning to do for twenty years or so, why go to college or graduate school?

Note that I'm not blaming any individual parents. The society tells us that good parents drive their children everywhere. If you don't, you are a bad parent. And all that emotional priming makes it tremendously hard to let your child go anywhere on her own. If something happened you couldn't live with yourself. Besides, there are badly-behaving cars everywhere and nary a sidewalk in sight and many of us live in areas where we don't know the neighbors that well, if at all.

But take a step back to see the wider society. What is it doing to make parenting easier? That, after all, is how you make a more child-friendly world.

What I mostly see is the idea that it's the individual parents (read: mothers) who are responsible for everything, not the society. Let's not have good sidewalks or bike paths. Let's cut back on school buses to save money. Why not just let the school system collapse? Moms can always home-school, and that way everybody else saves lots of money.

People differ in how they wish to bring up their children. But what I don't like about all this is the societal pressure brought upon any parent who cannot take on the hyper-vigilant role:

Last spring, her son, 10, announced he wanted to walk to soccer practice rather than be driven, a distance of about a mile. Several people who saw the boy walking alone called 911. A police officer stopped him, drove him the rest of the way and then reprimanded Mrs. Pierce. According to local news reports, the officer told Mrs. Pierce that if anything untoward had happened to the boy, she could have been charged with child endangerment. Many felt the officer acted appropriately and that Mrs. Pierce had put her child at risk.

There you go. The police officer saw Mrs. Pierce as the guilty party. I wonder why that officer isn't keeping the streets safe so that children can walk to soccer practice.

|

Friday, September 11, 2009

9/11 (by Suzie) 


This was taken by David Lubin, M.D.
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

Chloe, my sister's St. Bernard, is scared of lightning. During storms, she climbs into the tub, where she seems to feel safe.

I, too, have a great fear of lightning, inherited from my mother, who got it from her grandmother, who raised her till about age 5. When a storm approached, her grandmother would direct her to get under the bed while she hid in the closet. My best guess is that some Irish ancestor lived on a hill in a house made of tin.

When we lived in a trailer (?!) and then an apartment, there was only one room without windows, and thus, considered safe from lightning. The bathroom. We didn't climb into the tub. But Mom and I would sit on the floor and play Scrabble during storms, while our dog watched.

You may be thinking that my sister taught Chloe to fear storms. But no, my sister loves storms. When we all lived together to care for our father with Alzheimer's, we once heard a tornado siren. My sister grabbed a chair and hurried Daddy and his walker into a closet. (Getting him to sit on the floor would have been harder.) I was stuffed into another closet with Chloe. Then my sister ran outside in hopes of seeing the tornado.
|

Happy Gynecologic Cancer Awareness Month! (by Suzie) 



"Who is NED and why does everyone want a nice slow dance with him?" asks EyesOnThePrize, a nonprofit that provides gyn cancer support and information. NED stands for "no evidence of disease." That's what doctors say when they can't detect any signs of cancer, but don't feel comfortable proclaiming a patient cured. Some of us relish our relationship with NED.

Six gynecologic oncologists formed a band named NED, and they rocked the San Antonio convention center at the annual meeting of the Society of Gyn Oncs in February. I joined the young 'uns, jumping up and down by the stage.

Their first CD, "Rhythm Heals," went on sale Tuesday, with proceeds going to the Gyn Cancer Awareness Movement. In the clip above, Dr. Joanie Hope sings lead vocals on the title song. This is what their record company says:
The mission of the band is to enhance knowledge about gynecologic cancers and bring hope through rhythm for women undergoing treatment. The doctors strongly believe music heals. In fact, more than 250 journal articles report findings investigating the beneficial effects of music on pain, anxiety or depression. In a recent study at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, investigators found that patients who received music therapy while undergoing chemotherapy reported 37% less mood disturbance than other patients and 28% less anxiety. Other studies have shown that music can assist patients in coping with difficult illnesses. N.E.D. is focused on using music to convey this comfort.
If you know nothing about gyn cancers, you may want to take a moment to familiarize yourself with symptoms. Here's an example of a common myth, from the Women's Cancer Network:
Historically, ovarian cancer was called the “silent killer.” That’s because symptoms were not thought to develop until the chance of cure was poor. Recent studies, though, have shown this term is not accurate. The following symptoms are much more likely to occur in women with ovarian cancer than women in the general population: bloating; pelvic or abdominal pain; difficulty eating or feeling full quickly; urinary symptoms (urgency or frequency).
If you think it's silly to have months dedicated to various causes, perhaps you've never had to fight to get your existence recognized. That brings me to my only criticism of the band. On its page that details gyn cancers, I wish it would mention sarcoma. I've written before on women, cancer and politics.
|

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Assholery 



My apologies for the title of this post, but that's what this is:

A California lawmaker who resigned after he was caught on tape bragging about his sexual exploits with two women, one of them reportedly a lobbyist, denied on Thursday that he was having extramarital affairs.

Mike Duvall stepped down from the California Assembly on Wednesday, one day after a videotape surfaced in which the married legislator is heard telling a colleague that he enjoys spanking one of the women -- who he boasts is 18 years younger and favors skimpy, "eye-patch" sized underwear.

"I want to make it clear that my decision to resign is in no way an admission that I had an affair or affairs," Duvall, a 54-year-old family-values Republican from Orange County, said in a statement posted on his website.

"My offense was engaging in inappropriate storytelling and I regret my language and choice of words. The resulting media coverage was proving to be an unneeded distraction to my colleagues and I resigned in the hope that my decision would allow them to return to the business of the state," he said.

Let's take him at his word, then. So what he is saying that it's less serious to tell made-up sex stories of two women who in fact did not have sex with him? And he's only concerned about his colleagues!!!!

What about the women whose lives he has wrecked this way? They are both married, after all, and both in careers where his insinuations certainly would not help them.

I have no idea what the truth is. But I think telling made-up stories is a violation of the women in the stories. A big one, too.
|

Silvio Berlusconi And The Geishas 



Berlusconi is such a clown that it's sometimes hard to take him seriously. But he's a man of great power in Italy, and so his pronouncements on women and himself do matter.

And what pronouncements those are!

Premier Silvio Berlusconi brushed off questions about any possible resignation over his sex scandal, saying Thursday that he has been Italy's best premier ever.

Berlusconi also said he was considering suing the woman at the center of the scandal. Patrizia D'Addario, a self-proclaimed prostitute, claims she tape-recorded Berlusconi during a night she says they spent together at the premier's home last year.

The left-leaning newsweekly L'Espresso obtained copies of the tapes, including one in which a man it identified as Berlusconi is heard telling D'Addario to wait for him on the big bed while he showers.

Berlusconi said Thursday he was considering taking legal action. He said he had been the "victim of an attack by a person who wanted to create a scandal" — an apparent reference to D'Addario.

Berlusconi repeated his insistence that he "didn't pay a lira, a euro, for a sexual favor" and never had.

He spoke at a news conference with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero after an Italian-Spanish summit on Sardinia.

"I say this also because, for those who love to conquer, the joy and the most beautiful satisfaction is in the conquest," Berlusconi said, as an expressionless Zapatero looked on. "If you have to pay, I ask you, what joy is there?"

Here we get that "sexual conquest" idea again. Berlusconi is the invading army! Berlusconi is the huntsman with the quiver and the bow! And he wins! The prey is caught, the enemy surrenders, all voluntarily. And how sweet it it.

Now, to pay for all that would be like having someone scare the pheasants into the air before rich tourists take pot-shots at them, right? Well, it would perhaps be more like availing oneself of the services of well-trained geishas:

The scandal broke last spring, when the 72-year-old premier's wife, Veronica Lario, said she was divorcing him, citing his presence at the 18th birthday party of Naples model Noemi Letizia and his party's lineup of TV starlets as candidates for European Parliament elections.

Berlusconi said Thursday that three candidates who attended a course his party offered had all been well-educated, multilingual, sophisticated women who were doing a fine job representing Italy in Europe.

After Lario's accusations, several young women including D'Addario went public with stories that they were paid to attend parties at Berlusconi's homes by a Berlusconi acquaintance, Gianpaolo Tarantini.

Tarantini has apologized for creating a scandal for the premier. He says he reimbursed the women for travel and other expenses but that Berlusconi never knew about it.

The premier on Thursday confirmed that he had been at a few functions with Tarantini, but he stressed that the "beautiful women" Tarantini brought along were his own friends, not Berlusconi's.

That's my take on Berlusconi's defenses. He still doesn't see women as people, and he thinks that viewing them as prey in the hunt of love or as well-trained geishas is a compliment.

|

On Holding Hands Across The Aisle 



Obama's speech was full of references to bipartisanship, though he didn't use that exact term. I sat there, squirming, every time I heard the compromises he suggested with the Republican Party: The party that has been running after me and others like me with a large napkin tied around its neck and a fork and a knife raised up in the air.

So it's hard for me to feel bipartisan gentleness, hard to see the bartering that goes on, because some of that bartering might end up meaning: "No, Echidne doesn't get totally eaten, but you can cut off a few chunks here and there." Am I paranoid? Sure! I blog, after all.

But it's possible to feel skeptical about bipartisanship more generally, for at least three reasons:

First, Grover Norquist called it "date rape," and I'm sure that many Republicans agree with that definition. Joe Wilson calling Obama a liar is not bipartisanship. The Republicans booing is not bipartisanship. Most of the Republican statements I have heard in the context of health care reform are not about bipartisanship. They are about destroying any possibility of reform.

Second, I saw only minimal bipartisanship during the Bush years, minimal, and I suspect that bipartisanship now is something that is stressed only because the Republicans are temporarily out of power. Once they are back in we will never hear that term again. In short, I don't believe that the Republicans want to be bipartisan. Not in the true sense of the word, though of course they'd like to get their policies executed by the other side of the aisle. Who wouldn't?

Third, I'm seriously wondering if there IS a middle in American politics. Many people think that this is how the political picture in the US might look: Most people are in the middle:





(The vertical axis in my interpretation measures the relative numbers of people with various beliefs. The horizontal axis measures increasing conservatism or liberalism)

But I'm not so sure. I think this might better describe the U.S. political views:







Note how the middle is almost empty? Note how the two concentrations (where the relative mass of people might lie) are apart from each other?

My theory might be wrong, but I'd like to explore it a little, because IF it is right, bipartisanship is much, much more difficult than we imagine. Much more must be given away to lure the other side to participate.

This doesn't make the task impossible, and I can well understand how at least talking bipartisanship might help with the unaffiliated voters. But what bipartisanship means for them might not be what it would end up meaning in the Congress.

|

Stuff That Might Interest You. Including Krugman On Public Option. 



1. Would you like to participate in a study that looks at attitudes concerning mothers and feminism? If so, check the study and its requirements out here. I have no connection with the study and only post the information here as a public service.

2. Every homeless pigeon has a home somewhere. Thus, John Stossel joins his clones at Fox. How nice. Too bad that the other side of the political aisle never takes care of its mouthpieces. Nooo, we are supposed to sink or swim in the cold waves of the free market, while the free market acolytes are tucked into safe beds at conservative think tanks and Fox News and Washington Times. I have never quite understood that.

3. This piece by Paul Krugman on why the public option matters is still worth reading. Because the reason is not that it's some sort of a fetish of the mad, mad left.

|

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

An Itchy Post on Obama's Health Care Speech 



I ended up biting my scales off and slithering nervously around the Snakepit Inc., trying to understand why I couldn't just sit down and write a straightforward post on the speech. I watched it and all, including those nasty Republican interruptions (could they have anything to do with the race of the president, hmmm).

But I can't just do the usual open-a-lymph-vein-and-write post. Cannot. And the reason is that this happens to be a field I know. It's like someone showing me their brand new car and pointing out the exquisite detailing while all I can think of is the crappy engine under the hood. So what I really want to write about is the engine. The speech, however, did not give enough information for me to model the events. Hence the itchiness.

As a short summary, I think the cost aspects of the proposal will not be good but the access aspects probably are satisfactory. We are going to revisit the high care of health costs until Americans get over their fear of the single-purse model of health care provision.

Will that ever happen, I wonder? I listened to the BBC news on the speech tonight and giggled at the British reporter's inability to understand the arguments about socialism and such in this country, as if just having a public option would bring the ghost of Stalin back to life (with bloody fangs, too). One person the program interviewed mentioned the American distrust of the government as something self-evident. It may well be, but what about the distrust of large insurance companies and monopolized medicine? True, bureaucracy can be a problem with the government but the insurance forms I'm filling in right now are not exactly non-bureaucratic. And we have learned of the denial of care not from some communist bureaucrats but from our friendly insurance providers.

The fear of the public option is odd given that over fifty percent of all health care expenditure already takes place via federal, state or local governments, and although only the VA does more than hand out money to private companies, it is still a fact of the American life that government is the biggest individual player in health care. So why pretend that this is not the case?

Sigh. I will probably never be able to really understand this particular aspect of the U.S. culture. But I can certainly tell you that neither illegal immigrants nor malpractice suits are anywhere near sizable contributors to the high health care costs in this country. They may have political power, but getting rid of all malpractice suits and denying care to all illegal aliens would save very little money.

Does that make any sense? Yes, the car looks great! But no, that doesn't matter very much until I can take it for a test-drive. And I haven't got the keys yet.

|

The Golden Rule 






The political version: The one with the gold is the one who rules.

That's why I'm not very happy to hear that the Supreme Court is considering letting corporations and unions spend freely on election campaigns. Yes, I know that corporations are sorta like persons in the United States. Or at least like zombies, because they cannot be killed and they don't bleed. But they are zombies with rights! Including possibly the right to free speech, which somehow turns out to mean the right to spend money to get the corporate viewpoint through.

Here's the thing: The democratic ideal is "one person, one vote." But how that person votes depends on what she or he knows, and that, in turn, can be influenced by campaign advertising. Money is not spread evenly over everyone in this society. Indeed, corporations have lots of it, and that allows them to spend more on "corporate-friendly" messaging. It's hard to counter that if you don't have the same resources.

I'm pragmatic enough to know that money matters a lot in politics, and that those in power usually had money to get there. But the more openly we accept the power of commercialism in democracy, the further away we drift from its basic ideals.

Incidentally, is Justice Kennedy really this naive?

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often the high court's swing vote, but a firm opponent of many campaign restrictions, at one point told the government's lawyer, "Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election."

Probably not. He's just paving the way for the New Era where the IBM, General Electric and Monsanto fill your television with pre-election campaign messages. He's also for the zombie free speech rights.
----
Picture source.

|

We Do Like A Good Fight! (Yesterday's Angry Post II) 



Don't we, now? Never mind if it is a completely made-up fight, and never mind if the vast majority of Americans are not affected by it one single bit. A good example of such a fight, stoked by the media in that they gave extra time and space for nutters to explain what their fears were, was the Obama speech to schoolchildren. So we are to sincerely believe that president Obama (that Blue Dog Democrat or something to the right of that, that bipartisan friend-maker who wants everybody to join in a circle-song) is going to talk to schoolchildren about socialism!

Socialism my ass. And even if he had done such a very odd thing, would an hour of his voice have been enough to mesmerize all those little children into Maoists or something similar? Would they have all gone out to get abortions and to burn flags then?

I understand that there are people that crazy in this country. But what I don't understand is the media paying attention to them, taking them seriously and presenting all this as appropriate public discourse when it's something that should have been kept within the office walls of a therapist.

But that's just a prelude to what I really am angry about: The utterly inane health care debate. And this is the reason:

How can people debate something they know so little about? Sure, we all have our personal stories about health care. But fixing the SYSTEM requires understanding the current system and it requires understanding the alternatives. It requires someone to actually give the necessary facts before any debate can even begin.

And I don't see that. What appears to be happening is an obfuscation, not a clarification. The more people debate, the more false claims are entered into the riot and nobody much mentions that they are false. All arguments are suddenly equal! Or opinions are suddenly equally worthy of being taken as facts!

When something like this happens, people pick on an emotional basis. And the Obama administration isn't doing its job in this particular matter in terms of the leadership that is needed by explaining the basic facts, the basic problems which the system has. This has allowed the opposition to frame the issues and the media has decided that the plot of this particular story is all the grassroots opposition to any changes in the health care system.

I hope that tonight's speech will change this. Perhaps president Obama will suddenly grow that fire in the belly that is needed for pushing a real reform through. Perhaps, and I sincerely hope so. But as things stand right now, the obfuscators are winning because they have more belly fire. They care more. And that is bad news for all those who want real health care reform more than they want to sit back with a bucket of popcorn and watch yet another silly political fight.

|

Eye-Patch Duvall 



Is a guy who likes to joke about his "sexual conquests." He's also a Fambly Values Republican legislator in California and has sex with lobbyists. That would be people who try to influence him. The eye patch refers to the way he describes one lobbyist's underwear.

Having sex with lobbyists seems kinda unethical to me, but what do I know. The reason I'm writing about this is Duvall's obvious belief that talking about his sexual "conquests" is perfectly AOK, that there's nothing odd about being all for conservative family values and at the same time boasting about the number of scalps (or whatever) he has managed to gather on his adventures.

I'm trying to imagine a reversal to this story, a female legislator boasting about the number of male lobbyists with thongs or whatever. Maybe in another thousand years.
----
Addendum: It finally occurred to me (and Moe before me) that we have no actual proof of any of this philandering happening. Just Mr. Duvall's say-so.

|

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

No Angry Post II Today 



My deepest apologies on that. I have been busy with goddessing duties. Perhaps tomorrow would suit you as well? There's plenty to be angry about and as long as it's kept to the righteous anger and the sheering* light of truth it's all good. Right?

Right?
----
A combination of searing and shearing, err.
|

The Baucus Plan 



I haven't read it in detail, yet, but what I have skimmed so far suggests that it's more patching of the frock that is the existing health care system. A big patch put on that fraying hem: Let more poor people on Medicaid, the state system which covers health care needs of certain poor people right now. This isn't a bad thing to do, of course, except that Medicaid already is in deep trouble and in many places a physician who accepts Medicaid payments is as rare as those hen's teeth.

Besides, Medicaid reimbursement levels are set by the states (though federally subsidized), so they differ widely across states. But never mind. I guess this patch is better than nothing.

The Baucus plan requires that everyone is covered, either through an employer, the government or through a private policy, but the policy doesn't actually help the people who are pushed into the private health insurance market very much at all.

So that's the summary for access. All people would be covered but what they are covered for might vary greatly.

How would these changes be paid for? This is how:

Fees on insurance companies, drug makers, medical device manufacturers and insurers. Tax of 35 percent on insurance plans costing above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families, applied to premium amounts over the threshold. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. A fee on employers whose workers receive government subsidies to help them pay premiums. Fines on those who fail to get coverage, up to $950 for individuals, $3,800 for families.

I haven't studied those suggested fees yet, but I'm skeptical that any of these would bring in enough money. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid would sorta work against the idea of increasing the number of people eligible for Medicaid, would it not? What, exactly, would be cut there and whom would it hurt?

And the rules of the game? How would they be changed in the Baucus plan for the insurance companies? Note that there would be NO public plan, only the introduction of consumer co-ops into the system. Those might not be a bad idea, because they would not be run on the profit motive so we'd get some control for its effects in this market full of information problems. But consumer co-ops don't have price setting power, don't get quantity discounts and cannot take on pharmaceutical companies or big hospitals. So I think the industry can relax here.

But this is a good change in the game rules:

BENEFITS PACKAGE: The government would set four benefit categories ranging from coverage of around 65 percent of medical costs to about 90 percent. No denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. All plans sold to individuals and small businesses would have to cover basic benefits, including primary care, hospitalization and prescription drugs.

It is good because it tries to standardize the product people buy in insurance, and banning the denial on the basis of pre-existing conditions is a necessary change.

But what does that banning mean in practice? Will people with pre-existing conditions get insured but only at an incredible high premium? That wouldn't be change we can believe in, would it?

Perhaps I get the answers I need from a careful study of the plan itself.

|

Today's Angry Post I 



1. Politics is not a computer-game. It's not baseball. It's not football. To win at any cost in politics usually means that you lost something much more important than the game. Politics. Has. Real. Consequences.

And to turn all that into some play about greed and power and the pure glee of making someone else suffer is disgusting.

2. Politics is not something you buy at the mall, preferably in your size and in pink. No, you can't return the Congress to the store if you don't like what they do. No, you can't whine when things go bad, because you didn't vote for those causing teh badness. It's not consumerism. You get some group in power whether you want or not.

3. Politics is not entertainment for you. It's not smart to write about it all as if it was a horse-race, to rank the players as if they were Reality Show contestants, America's talent, to be giggled at and pointed at because they have screechy voices or unbecoming suits.

Nobody is required to make politics fun for you, to make difficult concepts easy or to take care that you are not misinformed. But those who write on politics should at least get the barest facts right. You know, boring facts, the ones which don't play baseball, don't go to the mall, don't crack jokes. It is those facts which will ultimately have the power to hurt or help real people.

4. It's easy to see why so many don't want to participate in politics. Same-old-same-old, and the poor get poorer while the rich get a second chance to ruin the market. But not participating IS participating: Just as you can't buy a political option and then not-buy it if you don't like it, we always get politics rain upon us, whether we vote or not. Always. The non-participants participate by handing their keys to someone else.

5. Indeed, what politics IS, at its basest level is self-defense.

|

Monday, September 07, 2009

Who Wears The Pants? 



That is of course shorthand for who the dominator in the family might be. But in Sudan it's a real issue:

A Sudanese woman who wore pants in public was fined the equivalent of $200 but spared a whipping Monday when a court found her guilty of violating Sudan's decency laws.

The woman, Lubna Hussein, an outspoken journalist who had recently worked for the United Nations, faced up to 40 lashes in the case, which has generated a swarm of interest both inside and outside Sudan.

Mrs. Hussein vowed to appeal the sentence and even marched into the court in Khartoum, Sudan's capital, wearing the same pair of loose-fitting green slacks that she was arrested in.

Manal Awad Khogali, one of her lawyers, said the judge hearing the case called only police witnesses to testify and refused to allow Mrs. Hussein — who has pledged to use her trial to bring attention to women's rights in Sudan — to defend herself.

The whole article is worth reading, especially for this part:

It was the potential lashing, customarily carried out with a plastic whip that can leave permanent scars, that seemed to raise so many eyebrows. On Monday, diplomats from the British, French, Canadian, Swedish and Dutch Embassies showed up at the Khartoum courthouse, along with a throng of women protesters, many wearing pants. Witnesses said several bearded counterprotesters in traditional Islamic dress also arrived and yelled out "God is Great."

Riot police broke up the demonstration and carted away more than 40 women. Sudanese officials said they were released shortly later. Witnesses said the police beat up at least one woman.

It tells us how very important it is that women work together to change things. Sadly, it also tells us a story about the power of violence.

Trousers are not discussed in the Quran, by the way. Even literalists seem to use their holy books rather creatively when it's in their interest.

|

Should You Wish To Labor Today... 



Which is a joke about the fact that today the United States has a public holiday called Labor Day (not in honor of birthing women, by the way), and not a great one. But if you don't want to enjoy the beach or the barbeques or whatever rings your bells, you might read Paul Krugman on "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"

Then tell me what he says, because I have been too lazy to read it all. See what powers we bloggers have? Though I did read enough of the first part (confusing beauty and truth) to strongly agree with Krugman. When I was but a little sprout of a goddess and studied economics it seemed totally obvious to me that models were one thing and reality another, and that though the two do relate they are not the same thing, and if the model fails to explain reality then it's the model that has to be changed, not reality.

Imagine my surprise when I found many fellow students not making that distinction at all. Very odd.

If you don't want to labor over economics, you might prefer getting all angry about this article: "Women's Role In Sex Crimes Resurfaces As Issue." It's not the article itself that made me angry but that inane headline. What is the most common role women have in sex crimes, after all????? To discuss women who commit such crimes, usually together with men, as the sum total of women's roles in sex crimes is stupid.

|

Sunday, September 06, 2009

A little listening fun (by Suzie) 


Mary, a friend since childhood, sings lead vocals for the band Merry and the Mood Swings. She is towering above the band members on the CD cover. No, she doesn't usually wear her hair like that.

Instead of the Empire State Building, they've substituted the Reunion Tower in Dallas. Mary's holding Big Tex.

Here's their song "Metrosexual."
|

Some Sunday Sasha 






How the time flies! Little puppies become bigger puppies, but every bit as charming. Picture by Doug.

|

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Maggot Lace 



Caitlin Flanagan is a stunning writer:

A long time ago, I attended the funeral of a teenage boy who died the way Wade Edwards did, in a car that flipped badly and killed him quickly. I remember standing at the burial site, under a hot Los Angeles sun, a large crowd of us waiting for the parents to arrive. The cortege turned in through the gates, snaked up the winding road, and pulled up to where we were gathered. For a long time nothing happened, the car doors all stayed closed, and you realized—in a misery of embarrassed voyeurism that occluded even the sadness—that a drama was going on inside the car containing the mother, that getting her to stand out in the sunshine with us was going to involve someone persuading her to allow her son to be dead.

At last the car doors opened, and you felt you should look away, but that wasn't right either, and so you watched, and it was a bad thing. At first, the procession faltered forward. The family made it down to the graveside, and a rabbi spoke. The pine box was lowered into the ground and the time came for the boy's brother to spade the first shovel of dirt onto the coffin, and that's when things fell apart. I'd known the boy well—he had been a student at the school where I taught English—but I hadn't loved him. In fact, I had never loved anyone yet, because I was years away from having a child of my own, and until you've done that you're just guessing about love, gesturing toward it, assuming that it's the right name for a feeling you've had.

Things fell apart when they tried to spade in the earth, and there was screaming and titanic grief, and you were in the position of watching someone being forced—physically forced—to bear the unbearable. At last it was done, and the family stumbled back up the hill to the air-conditioned cars with the liveried drivers, and the mother collapsed into one car, and the door was shut solidly behind her, sealing her into her shadowed madness.

Beautiful, is it not?

Too bad that those marvelous paragraphs are embedded in a review of three books which connects Helen Gurley Brown (the author of Sex And The Single Girl) with the infidelity of John Edwards. The subtitle of the review tells us what Flanagan's message is:

How Helen Gurley Brown inspired a generation of home-wreckers, and brought down John Edwards

These home-wreckers are the secretaries and receptionists Gurley Brown wrote about in the 1960s or their spiritual granddaughters of today: Women ready to grab whichever available man they can, and to hell with the wife at home.

The Gurley Brownish single women don't have the power to get promoted at work, Flanagan reminds us, but they have the power to claw their way up along a hairy male leg. At least until its owner shakes the struggling single woman off, as he will, in due time, because mistresses are for sex, long-suffering wives at home for real life.

Home-wrecking is not like other blue-collar industries, in Flanagan's world. It's totally staffed by women. Men are apathetic victims, led around by their penises, and cannot be held responsible for their urges to bed-hop even while married. This is something women should just accept as the framework for their lives.

That, according to Flanagan, leaves them with three options: either marry one of those bastards and stay long-suffering in the kitchen, refuse the rigged game altogether and become a lonely spinster with cats or wreck the homes of godly married women. What juicy choices we are offered in her world!

What's ultimately weirder is the great contempt towards all men Flanagan demonstrates, without seeming to notice it. That this contempt is associated with complete acceptance of male dominance in all paths of life makes me wonder how she sees her life in general. Isn't it dreadful to be in that position of always justifying one's own internalized misogyny? How does she cope with the cognitive dissonance that certainly would bother me if I was a woman telling other women that housewives are the only Good Women and that house-cleaning is the epitome of spiritual enlightenment, while all the time carrying on a nice little writing career with paid help at home? Or is it all just a game, something for laughs while tossing back a beer or two with the guys at the bar?

Who knows and who cares, you might say. So let's move on, to note that women in Flanagan's world belong into groups, some very bad (feminists), some bad (single women planning to wreck home) and some just pitiful (women who forgot to have children), but men don't belong to any similar subgroups. They are allowed to belong to the whole boys-will-be-boys dominant class, but no one man is an example of a sub-group (such as philanderers) that Flanagan would condemn. She condemns her own sex in that wide sweep of the brush. Perhaps this is what Ta-Nehisi Coates means in this quote about the review:

I don't really agree with this Caitlin Flanagan piece on Helen Gurley Brown (it feels weirdly gender-nationalist to me) but I enjoyed it a lot.

Gender-nationalist??? What nation does Flanagan hold a passport from, I wonder.

Well, certainly not from Arkansas. Our Caitlin fairly shudders when writing about Gurley Brown's childhood:

Born in an Arkansas hollow in 1922, fatherless by 10, Brown was poor—dirt poor—from the get-go, and she was raised by women who tended to step off the road and pee when the urge hit them. Clearly, there is something Appalachian about the easy truck with bodily functions that became so important to Brown's mission and message. While the Mount Holyoke grads were meeting in embarrassed little encounter groups to discuss possibly putting a mirror down there, Brown was telling her readers to embrace all aspects of their body, including the various functions and products of the alimentary tract.

In another woman, one whose life journey began elsewhere, this might be described as a hard-won, anti-bourgeois earthiness, but Brown never was bourgeois. The central tension of her work, and what has made it such a success, is that her ideas, launched at women who desire to gain or maintain position in the middle-middle class, emanate from the sort of person who gives that group the deepest and most reflexive shudder of all: pee-on-the-side-of-the-road white trash.

So many interesting avenues to explore there, not to mention the general question whether Helen Gurley Brown really was a feminist forerunner or just a woman who told other women how to work the patriarchal system a teeny-weeny bit to their advantage. I also find the column an odd mixture of steeped-in-the-sixties arguments with an otherwise sterile ahistoricity (no infidelity before Gurley Brown, no contraceptive pill). Not to mention how infidelity in the column is always between a single woman and a married man, never the other way round.

But rather than go there I want to return to that first quote from Flanagan, about the great grief on the death of a child.

What is its role in the column? The obvious tie-in appears to be to Elizabeth and John Edwards and their loss of a son. If you connect that with his later infidelity and blame it on single women as a group, what are you truly trying to say? That you fear (fear) what might happen to your family? That you see enemies to it everywhere, enemies who want to kill what you most value? And that you are vulnerable, naked and at risk?

Wouldn't it then be very reassuring if you can picture your enemies as ultimately pretty non-violent women: feminists or greedy temptresses or whatever group you pick? They are not likely to have any real power over your family, after all, and you can then avoid looking into the real dangers.

|

Friday, September 04, 2009

‘Dollhouse,' power & redemption (by Suzie) 



First, I want to clear up a misquote that’s making the rounds. Some people quote Joss Whedon as saying “Dollhouse” isn’t a feminist show. This seems to stem from io9’s report on Whedon’s speech when he got a Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism.

Now the full speech* is on the Internet, and anyone can hear what he said. Because he talks publicly about being a feminist and a humanist,
“everybody is judging what I do by that. … I read today in the Washington Post, I think, that fans are calling [‘Dollhouse’] a feminist screed, and it’s not. It’s a work of fiction that I’m creating. If you use drama for didacticism, it’s not drama; it’s speech writing.”
On Whedonesque, he addressed the question of whether “Dollhouse” is feminist by explaining that the author’s intent does not necessarily mean a production will, or will not, be feminist. The viewers decide.

“I think there are episodes [of ‘Dollhouse’] that don’t say anything, and I’m ashamed of that,” he says in his humanism speech. He acknowledges that he caved in to demands, such as making all the dolls young, to keep Fox from canceling the show.
There are two things that interest me, and they’re both power. ... One is not having it and one is abusing it. … In my life … I went through a period, for a long time, of having none; not realizing I had it and abusing it; to an understanding of that and wishing to be redeemed of that.
Redemption is at the heart of everything he does, he says.

For me, the first season DVD redeemed “Dollhouse.” (The second season begins Sept. 25.) In the intro (thanks to the person who transcribed it), he compares himself to characters on the show.
I am a monster.

I am also a terrified young girl making her way through the dark, trying to find an answer, an exit, an identity. I'm a capricious and self-satisfied programmer, a ruthless and terribly vulnerable boss, and a scarred, lonely healer who cannot come out of the dark.

And this show is all about the dark; I was out of superhero land and into a world of the helpless and the corrupt. It kept me up nights, thinking of the tightrope I was going to start walking. But in the end it drew me in, almost the way it draws the noble FBI agent who just wants to help a woman free herself - 'cause I'm him too. We all live in the Dollhouse. We all play there. We're all abusers, victims, kind, callous ... cobbling our own narratives about who we are and what we want. We are programmed. We are programmers.
Earlier, Ladybusiness gave this analysis of the show:
The Dollhouse is a giant metaphor, not only for rape culture, but for patriarchy and oppression at large: even the boy dolls are girls, stripped of agency or access to power and cast in pre-defined roles to fulfill the fantasies of the folks who are actually in charge. When they have sex, they aren't consenting - they've been made to think that they are consenting, by being made to think that they are the people who would consent to such things. They exist either in a state of infantilization and non-personhood (in which they are "cared for" by people who have a vested interest in continuing to use them) or implanted with false consciousness in which they are not aware of what's being done to them. I mean, false consciousness: Whedon's metaphors, they are rarely subtle. Their reactions to learning this, when they "wake up" (which Whedon has shown them doing, albeit briefly) are horror, disgust, and rage at how deeply they've been violated.

You can't just stake the enemy or cast a spell at him or throw him into Hell this time. The enemy surrounds you and controls you and is much, much bigger than any one person. The enemy is in your head: it controls what you're allowed to think, what you're allowed to know, who you're allowed to be. Resistance, this time, isn't about throwing punches. It's about getting your mind back. It's about reclaiming your right to define who you are - your right to be a person.
I’ve written before about "Dollhouse," including the issue of consent and the guys who keep insisting that the show is morally ambiguous.

Yes! Even smart men who discuss philosophy ponder whether it would be exploitative or immoral for an illegal, underground, commercial business to get young people to agree, sometimes with coercion, to have their personalities wiped clean and replaced with other personas that will do whatever the clients want. Feminists were treated to another of these discussions, as one frequent commenter said he preferred the pilot that aired and what he considered its moral ambiguity.

The DVD includes the original pilot, titled “Echo” after the main character, played by producer Eliza Dushku. To save the show, Whedon and Dushku scrapped the original pilot and made another.

In the DVD commentaries, Whedon says fantasy is a gray area: A person may imagine the perfect lover, or dream of wiping away painful memories. But if the Dollhouse were real, it would be unacceptable, and the sex the Actives have would not be consensual. The episode that sparks the most debate on this subject is “Man on the Street,” in which a gazillionaire rents an Active each year to be his wife on the anniversary of her death. Even if his motives are sympathetic, he’s still a predator, Whedon suggests.

The DVD also includes the 13th episode, “Epitaph One,” which Fox chose not to air. (Stop reading now if you don’t want spoilers.) The setting is 2019, by which time others have gotten hold of the technology. Some use this to jump from body to body, hoping to escape death. Some have turned mobs into killers. A few people who have retained their own consciousness stumble upon the Dollhouse, and hear the memories of the original inhabitants. The “terrified girl” is now helping others and may have killed the boss. The programmer, who calls himself a monster, has gone mad, knowing what his work has wrought.

What the Dollhouse did was not just wrong; it brought about an apocalypse. Take that, you lovers of ambiguity.
----------
*For those who like Joss, the 90-minute video of the humanism speech is well-worth watching. It has various tidbits, such as: His two children have his wife’s last name.
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

This is Logan, an Akita/Husky mix, who lives with Lisa and her family in Anchorage, where it's already winter -- by Florida standards.
|

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Can You Spot The Invisible Elephant? 






Gail Collins has written a fascinating column on Levi Johnston's article in Vanity Fair. Johnston, you may recall, is the father of Sarah Palin's grandchild. Johnston tells us what a rotten mother Sarah Palin is. He also comes across as a bratty teenager, but never mind.

Collins makes several good points in her piece. Sadly, I want to discuss the one that isn't so very good:

Besides selling a fantasy about how easily a semi-delinquent, unemployed father-to-be could be turned into Prince Charming, Palin also spent her campaign trying to give the impression that running for vice president and taking care of five children, the youngest a baby with special needs, was as easy as falling off a snowbank. Politicians who don't want the federal government to address child care issues like to imagine that's true. It absolves them from dealing with the question of who takes care of the kids when women make up almost half the work force.

A good point, you mutter? And isn't she really a horrible mother? And can mothers indeed have jobs and children without failing in both or at least one of those endeavors? Let's start discussing what a Bad Mother is.

Now for the invisible elephant. I think it's called Todd, a stay-at-home dad whose parenting skills are not much discussed. You remember? The guy married to Sarah Palin. I'm not sure what his role in that family is supposed to be if Sarah Palin is the one expected to mind the children and do politics, too.

Just do a reversal on that. Pick any male politician with a stay-at-home wife. Then ask how he manages to both work and care for the children. Make him the responsible party in anything the children do wrong. Try that and see the humongous waves of discussion you develop, even among feminists. It's probably because we prefer the elephant invisible.

Collins' point about the need for childcare arrangements stands, of course. But I really am tired of that fat invisible elephant on the living-room couch.

|

Some Soul Food For Feminists 



This is what I listen to when I have been beaten to small pieces of dim snake scales by fatigue, hatred and inertia. It gets me back slithering. I hope it can do the same to you, whatever the cause of justice you pursue.





Note: The words Shirley Bassey sings are not the same you get from searches for the lyrics. I like hers much better.

|

I Luvz Dan Rather Today 



Jezebel posts a video about Morning Joe discussion on women anchors. Do watch it and read the attached post. What I noticed, with that third eye of mine, was not only the division of labor where Mika Brzezinski was the one to say all the concern-trolling stuff about how women are not ready etc. but also the enormous gender differences in clothing. Now, I have no idea if men are told to wear dark testosterone-impregnated pinstriped suits and women something feminine, but it's certainly the case that the dress parameters, among many other things, differ by gender in television-land.

It's worth noticing all that. And I love Dan Rather (just momentarily, being parched for support) because he's fairly open and honest in that chat.

Oh. I almost forgot the other reason to write about this: Mika Brzezinski's words about women being promoted too young or when they are not ready may or may not be true in television-land, what with the desire to have hawt anchor-babies. But women everywhere know that employers who don't promote women won't explain it as a natural conclusion arising from their sexism. They give other reasons for it, such as the woman not just being ready for a promotion. Therefore, every time we hear those arguments we should examine them carefully. This is something that matters to a woman wanting to get promoted from a factory-floor position to one that pays just a little bit more.



|

Redefining the End Points 



The U.S. media is excellent at cutting off the left from political debates. That way the moderates look like the new left end and the so-called center keeps on moving to the right. For an example, take a look at a USAToday article on Obama's coming speech on health care. It begins by stating the problems he has (people don't want reform yadda-yadda, despite what the polls tell us). Then comes this:

As he enters what senior adviser David Axelrod calls the "eighth or ninth inning" of the debate, Obama is caught between liberals who want to revamp the insurance market with a government-funded "public option" and moderates who favor an incremental approach.

Both efforts have stumbled. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the public option wasn't essential. Six senators seeking a compromise ran into trouble after one, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, urged his donors to defeat "Obama-care."

Note how suddenly wanting a public option is labeled a) liberal and b) an extreme end-point. The correct end-point in the debate was a single-payer health care system, but the media has successfully erased that a long time ago, despite letting all sorts of right-wing memes stand as truths.

Of course a government option is an incremental policy. That it has become the bugbear of our political classes as pretty surprising. I guess the wingnuts are still worth fearing and in power, despite being a minority in both houses of the Congress.

What does the reform mean without a public option? My simple answer: Nothing. For a longer explanation, read my AlterNet piece on this.

|

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

On The Duggars Phenomenon 



The Duggar family are expecting child number nineteen, at the same time as the eldest son in the family is preparing for his first-of-the-series. The Duggar children all have first names beginning with the letter "J", but the son is going to break with tradition and use the letter "M" for his series!

I know all this because the Duggars -- and their fertility choices -- are on the television. You can follow their lives that way. Indeed, the television pays for their fertility choices which is something those who wish to emulate them might not realize.

How does the audience view the Duggars, in any case? As a freak show? As curiosities which nevertheless deserve our respect for being so very thorough about that increase-and-fill-the-earth bidness? As a teaching program for other mothers who have failed by not multiplying enough? As something similar to the Big Love series, a way to familiarize us with various anti-woman arrangements in this world and to make us see them as normal and cute and quite AOK? I wonder.

The Duggars appear to be part of the Quiverfull movement, which advocates this:

Don't you see that children are God's best gift?
the fruit of the womb his generous legacy?
Like a warrior's fistful of arrows
are the children of a vigorous youth.
Oh, how blessed are you parents,
with your quivers full of children!
Your enemies don't stand a chance against you;
you'll sweep them right off your doorstep.

I chose the version which replaces "men" with "parents", to make it all as fair as possible. The Quiverfull also advocate male dominance in the families and argue that it's God who owns women's uteri, not the women themselves, and to assume otherwise is a sin. Hence their anger at feminists and such. Only God can determine when a woman becomes pregnant. Of course the lack of parthenogenesis is ignored in that view or the power it gives to man-the-head-priest in deciding when his wife should bear again.

Kathryn Joyce has written extensively on this movement. Here's a snippet from her work:

Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They home-school their families, attend fundamentalist churches and follow biblical guidelines of male headship--"Father knows best"--and female submissiveness. They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. Quiverfull began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess's 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, which argues that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies--the Lord's temple--are a seizure of divine power.

Though there are no exact figures for the size of the movement, the number of families that identify as Quiverfull is likely in the thousands to low tens of thousands. Its word-of-mouth growth can be traced back to conservative Protestant critiques of contraception--adherents consider all birth control, even natural family planning (the rhythm method), to be the province of prostitutes--and the growing belief among evangelicals that the decision of mainstream Protestant churches in the 1950s to approve contraception for married couples led directly to the sexual revolution and then Roe v. Wade.

"Our bodies are meant to be a living sacrifice," write the Hesses. Or, as Mary Pride, in another of the movement's founding texts, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, puts it, "My body is not my own." This rebuttal of the feminist health text Our Bodies, Ourselves is deliberate. Quiverfull women are more than mothers. They're domestic warriors in the battle against what they see as forty years of destruction wrought by women's liberation: contraception, women's careers, abortion, divorce, homosexuality and child abuse, in that order.


I found one woman's essay about her journey into the Quiverfull quite upsetting:

God used a ladies' Christian email list to bring me to the conviction that God should be in control of our wombs.

...

The excuses that I gave for not wanting more children were all selfish and unBiblical:

1. " I can't handle the ones I have...I'm so tired! " - I truly needed to cast my cares upon the Lord. I was so wrapped up in "poor me" that many times it caused me to take my eyes off of Him.

2. "We can't afford more children...."- God supplies for our needs. If I am truly trusting him and acknowledging that all we have comes from Him, then I should be confident that He will supply what is needed for each additional child that He places into our hands.

All this segues into the wider question of what female reproductive rights mean when the woman has completely relinquished them to some divine power for whom her husband performs as the avatar.

|

Today's Embroidery 






I have posted this before, but this particular picture shows the character of the background cloth I used. The lesson in this one is obviously not obvious (screws eyes, waggles forked tongue). On some days I'm the fairy/angel and I get off, on other days I'm the monster and either get fed or not. Click on the picture to see it more clearly.

|

What's Sauce For The Gander... 






Doug in the comments linked to a column by Natalie Angier in the New York Times. The column is worth a post all its own, because of this:

Small wonder that many Darwinian-minded observers of human mating customs have long contended that serial monogamy is really just a socially sanctioned version of harem-building. By this conventional evolutionary psychology script, the man who skips from one nubile spouse to another over time is, like the sultan who hoards the local maidenry in a single convenient location, simply seeking to "maximize his reproductive fitness," to sire as many children as possible with as many wives as possible. It is the preferred male strategy, especially for powerful men, right? Sequentially or synchronously, he-men consort polygynously.

Women, by contrast, are not thought to be natural serializers. Sure, a gal might date around when young, but once she starts a family, she is assumed to crave stability. After all, she can bear only so many children in her lifetime, and divorce raises her risk of poverty. Unless forced to because some bounder has abandoned her, why would any sane woman choose another trot down the aisle — for another Rachael Ray spatula set? Spare me extra candlesticks, I'm a one-trick monogamist.

...

Yet in a report published in the summer issue of the journal Human Nature, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder of the University of California, Davis, presents compelling evidence that at least in some non-Western cultures where conditions are harsh and mothers must fight to keep their children alive, serial monogamy is by no means a man's game, finessed by him and foisted on her. To the contrary, Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, among the Pimbwe people of Tanzania, whose lives and loves she has been following for about 15 years, serial monogamy looks less like polygyny than like a strategic beast that some evolutionary psychologists dismiss as quasi-fantastical: polyandry, one woman making the most of multiple mates.

Doug also jokingly wonders if this refers to some loose piece of feminist research, and of course it's hard to know without reading the actual research. But if research consisting of following a tribe for fifteen years, recording the number of marriage-like relationships and recording the numbers of children which survive past the crucial age of five is loose research, what the fuck should we call all those ask-the-American-undergraduates-to-rank-pictures-of-desirable-women evo-psycho pieces? So loose that the universe and our brains fall through it?

Let me calm down a bit there. Whatever the quality of this research might be (and I will check if I have time), at least it actually measures reproductive success. The importance of this cannot be overstressed. Practically all the studies I have seen speculate about the reproductive success of men who cast their seed around widely, while not offering actual evidence. Likewise, very few studies address the complaint I've made many times that getting a woman fertilized does not equal having produced a fertile adult offspring. Before that is possible the pregnancy must result in a live birth, the resulting baby must be fed and kept safe all through the next ten plus years. Only then can we measure the reproductive success in the sense of the genes being passed on.

So what were the findings of this study? Here:

In her analysis, Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder found that although Pimbwe men were somewhat more likely than their female counterparts to marry multiple times, women held their own and even outshone men in the upper Zsa Zsa Gabor end of the scale, of five consecutive spouses and counting. And when Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder looked at who extracted the greatest reproductive payoff from serial monogamy, as measured by who had the most children survive past the first five hazardous years of life, she found a small but significant advantage female. Women who worked their way through more than two husbands had, on average, higher reproductive success, a greater number of surviving children, than either the more sedately mating women, or than men regardless of wifetime total.

Angier emphasizes that the results are preliminary. It will be most interesting to follow future studies of this data set.

|

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Noted In Passing 



And only because the great state of Massachusetts (or Sodom and Gomorrah, if you like) has never had a Senator with girly parts. Never. But Martha Coakley is planning to run for the seat Edward Kennedy vacated. Not sure about her chances, however.

|

Public Enemy Number One: Echidne 



Did you know that? And did you know that you are most likely every bit as frightening and dangerous, hmh? Certainly that's the case if you support feminism. Yes, my dears, we are the new Bonnie and Clyde of this great country of ours, speeding down sleepy suburban streets, rifles under our garter belts, ready to kill the traditional American family.

I really liked where that paragraph was going. Now it has to come down to earth which means that I have to add that I'm talking about the ultra-radical Talibanic Republican candidate for governor in Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell. He was trained in Regent University (where Jesus would go if he was somehow born fundie, wealthy and white in this country), and in 1989 wrote a thesis on the Family:

He argued for covenant marriage, a legally distinct type of marriage intended to make it more difficult to obtain a divorce. He advocated character education programs in public schools to teach "traditional Judeo-Christian values" and other principles that he thought many youths were not learning in their homes. He called for less government encroachment on parental authority, for example, redefining child abuse to "exclude parental spanking." He lamented the "purging of religious influence" from public schools. And he criticized federal tax credits for child care expenditures because they encouraged women to enter the workforce.

"Further expenditures would be used to subsidize a dynamic new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family by entrenching status-quo of nonparental primary nurture of children," he wrote.

He went on to say feminism is among the "real enemies of the traditional family."

Actually, feminism IS an enemy of the traditional family, if the word "traditional" refers to a male-dominated theocratic family without love or joy. Feminists want to replace that with a real family, of equality and mutual support and such. Or at least I want to do that. But yes, I'm aftah you, Mr. and Mrs. Traditional-Family-Values.

Now, twenty years is a long time, and perhaps Robert F. McDonnell has changed his mind on these weighty issues altogether. That sort of thing CAN happen, especially in an election year when one needs to appeal to fence-sitters and people who live in reality. And lo and behold! Mr. McDonnel indeed backtracks on some of his utterances:

McDonnell said in his statement that he is "fully supportive of the tremendous contributions women make in the workplace. My wife and daughters work. My campaign manager in 2005 was a working mother. I appointed 5 women to my senior staff as Attorney General."

I'd like to now more about his conversion experience. How did he move from his 1989 views to his present admiring stance? Did it hurt at all? And what are his current views on us frightening feminists?

|

That Cause-And-Effect Thingy Again... 



I've written before about the importance of not assuming causality in studies which only find correlation, and I plan to write more about the oh-so-common misuse of simple correlation between two variables as somehow the Final Word On Something when the situation might be much more complex and full of sneaky omitted variables. Today's topic is related to that one but also serves as an example of some other difficulties that one stumbles upon in interpreting empirical research.

Sounds like fun, eh? I can't make it simpler because I'm fatigued (says she while reclining on her recamier). Here's the news that provoked all this:

No vacationer plans on getting sick, but many do fall ill, and seriously. All too often they land at hospitals that are anything but temples of healing.

In the popular sitcom Royal Pains, ritzy folks in the Hamptons hire a concierge doctor to tend their ills rather than an inept local hospital.

In reality, it's no comedy. A USA TODAY analysis finds two dozen hospitals near popular travel destinations, as compiled by the National Travel Monitor, have death rates among the worst in the USA. A separate analysis shows that one of every four hospitals with high death rates for heart attack, heart failure or pneumonia — 94 of 402 — are near state parks.

The quoted article recommends that travelers do some checking before picking a particular travel destination. But here's the problem with this interpretation: A hospital could have higher death rates for the very reason that it's close to a large tourist attraction. Tourists, by definition, are strangers to the place, far from their own doctors and their medical records, and that combination is unlikely to improve the outcomes of any illness attacks they may have.

This isn't necessarily the case, of course. It could be that the discussed hospitals just have worse outcomes, even when they treat local people. But in general outcomes are only meaningful if we control for the types of patients which enter the hospital. If those patients are, on average, high-risk cases then even an excellent hospital can look bad in the outcome statistics.

|

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!