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

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Between life and death (by Suzie) 



Tonight, some Pagans will celebrate Samhain, "a time when the boundaries between the world of the living and the world of the dead become thinner, allowing spirits and other supernatural entities to pass between the worlds to socialize with humans." Other cultures around the world also remember ancestors and departed loved ones at this time.

I work with sarcoma patients, many of whom have metastatic disease, and sometimes it feels like we inhabit the borderlands between life and death. To capture that feeling, I wrote the following poem, which was published in "Something Close to Beautiful: Poems of Disability" by the Inglis House Poetry Workshop. It describes a CT with contrast.

Scans

Scan me.
Can you read the dis-ease?
Drink will reveal me,
the white-chalk taste
lining a crime-scene body.

In goes the needle.
Shoot the dye into my veins.
Shoot the die; I’m on a roll.
I’m in a role.
Radiate me, read me,
an illuminated book.

I’m told, “Hold your breath.”
I think, “I have been.”
In the stillness I hear the whir
of a thousand wings,
angels dancing on the point of a needle.
“Breathe.”

Shadows and spots
mark my fate
on a film, just a film
between life and death.
I can see through it;
I can see the light behind it.
|

Dancing With Demons 






I saved this wonderful story for today because it is Halloween scary. Sadly, it was so scary that it was removed from the website. But that will not stop me from sharing it with you:

CBN.com – Halloween—October 31—is considered a holiday in the United States. In fact, it rivals Christmas with regard to how widely celebrated it is. Stores that sell only Halloween-related paraphernalia open up a few months before the day and close shortly after it ends. But is Halloween a holiday that Christians should be observing?

The word "holiday" means "holy day." But there is nothing holy about Halloween. The root word of Halloween is "hallow," which means "holy, consecrated and set apart for service." If this holiday is hallowed, whose service is it set apart for? The answer to that question is very easy—Lucifer's!

Lucifer is a part of the demonic godhead. Remember, everything God has, the devil has a counterfeit. Halloween is a counterfeit holy day that is dedicated to celebrating the demonic trinity of : the Luciferian Spirit (the false father); the Antichrist Spirit (the false holy spirit); and the Spirit of Belial (the false son).

The pumpkins? They are symbols of the devil's titties! I added that bit, but not this:

The key word in discussing Halloween is "dedicated." It is dedicated to darkness and is an accursed season. During Halloween, time-released curses are always loosed. A time-released curse is a period that has been set aside to release demonic activity and to ensnare souls in great measure.

You may ask, "Doesn't God have more power than the devil?" Yes, but He has given that power to us. If we do not walk in it, we will become the devil's prey. Witchcraft works through dirty hearts and wrong spirits.

During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

Now why did they remove something this wonderful? The article even spells out what goes on in Halloween parties:

The word "occult" means "secret." The danger of Halloween is not in the scary things we see but in the secret, wicked, cruel activities that go on behind the scenes. These activities include:

* Sex with demons
* Orgies between animals and humans
* Animal and human sacrifices
* Sacrificing babies to shed innocent blood
* Rape and molestation of adults, children and babies
* Revel nights
* Conjuring of demons and casting of spells
* Release of "time-released" curses against the innocent and the ignorant.

Another abomination that goes on behind the scenes of Halloween is necromancy, or communication with the dead. Séances and contacting spirit guides are very popular on Halloween, so there is a lot of darkness lurking in the air.

Hecate talks about her long days of hexing all the candy, by the way.

Boo!
---
The picture is not about dancing with demons, but it sorta fits very well with the medieval values of that story, don't you think?



|

Halloween Edition Poetry Slam Thread posted by AMC 

An Afternoon Presence

The cat slowly stretches in the sun,
In the late fall afternoon,
Stands, reaches
And sharpens her claws
On a lichen covered stone,
On an unkept grave,
Of an unfamiliar family.

Then the wind flattens the grass.
|

Friday, October 30, 2009

Marvelous and hairy women (by Suzie) 

I have pale skin and black hair, a bad combo in a culture that mocks women with “too much” body hair. I have tortured myself with hair removal because I don’t have the strength to transgress in one more way.

I’ve shaved, plucked, bleached and endured electrolysis. Now I have a little machine that pulls out hair by the roots. This pains my conscience as well as my body. By conforming, I make it that much harder for women who don’t.

Because of all this, I read with interest an article condensed from the new book "The Marvelous Hairy Girls: The Gonzales Sisters and their Worlds." Merry Wiesner-Hanks, a distinguished professor of history, writes about the daughters of Petrus Gonzales in the 1500s. He and his offspring had
a genetic abnormality now known as hypertrichosis universalis, which meant much of [their] body was covered with hair. They were not mocked or shunned but were welcomed in the courts of Europe, spending much of their lives among nobles, musicians, and artists. ...

When people looked at the Gonzales sisters, or their pictures, they saw beasts or monsters as well as young women, but this was also true when they looked at most women. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose ideas were still powerful in the sixteenth century, had described women as imperfect men, the result of something wrong with the conception that created them—their parents were too young or too old, or too diverse in age, or one of them was not healthy. Nature always aimed at perfection, and Aristotle termed anything less than perfect “monstrous”; a woman was thus “a deformity, but one which occurs in the ordinary course of nature.”
Echidne is covered with scales. But how do the rest of you feel about body hair?
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

Ginger is dressed up for Halloween. Because her ancestors came from Mexico, she might prefer to celebrate the Dia de los Muertos. I wonder if she ever thinks about her mother, her puppies and other dogs no longer in her life.

By the way, she's sitting on my new couch, which someone was going to take to the dump.
|

(Trick) question for the weekend (by Suzie) 



For women dressing up for Halloween: Are you going as a sexy witch or a sexy animal or a sexy vampire or some other sexy something or just a woman wearing sexy stuff that she usually doesn't wear?

For men: Are you dressing like a woman because a man pretending to be a woman is so laughable? And why aren't you wearing something sexy?

(I already went to a big party where I dressed like a butterfly because I found some great wings at Goodwill. Unfortunately, I kept batting people in the head with my wings all night.)
|

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Today's Article Juxtaposition 



Thanks to moonbootica, who noticed these two stories on Whirlpool. First, the company got stimulus funds:

Whirlpool Corporation today announced that it is the recipient of stimulus funds as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Smart Grid Investment Grant program.

The grant of $19.3 million over a two year period - which Whirlpool will match
with its own investments - will help the company accelerate its work to
deliver to consumers smart appliances that can connect with the smart grid.

Second, Whirlpool is moving a refrigerator plant out of the U.S.:

Calling for U.S. leaders to repeal trade agreements and for citizens to buy goods made in America, current and former employees of Whirlpool rallied outside the company's Evansville factory Tuesday.

Drivers passing by on U.S. 41 honked to show support for the protestors, who stood on the highway's legal easement to not trespass on company property. Their message appeared on a number of signs, bearing the words, "Property Tax Cuts for Whirlpool = Job Loss," "Whirlpool to Welfare" and "Whirlpool Abandoned Us."

Bill Robertson, who has worked at the plant for 16 years, braved the rain that afternoon to make drivers aware of what he considers the consequences of buying products made in foreign countries. Those habits largely led to Whirlpool's decision to close its Evansville factory by the middle of next year, putting about 1,100 people out of work, Robertson said.

The company plans to stop making refrigerators there, as it has done for more than 50 years, and move that work to a plant to be built in Mexico at a cost of about $55 million.

Funny how that goes.

|

On Reversals 



I am planning a post on othering in the context of gender relations for next week. You can get ready for some of the themes by checking how you react to this story in the news:

Hundreds of people have attended a wedding in central Somalia between a man who says he is 112 years old, and his teenage wife.

Ahmed Muhamed Dore - who already has 13 children by five wives - said he would like to have more with his new wife, Safia Abdulleh, who is 17 years old.

"Today God helped me realise my dream," Mr Dore said, after the wedding in the region of Galguduud.

The bride's family said she was "happy with her new husband".

Mr Dore said he and his bride - who is young enough to be his great-great-grand-daughter - were from the same village in Somalia and that he had waited for her to grow up to propose.

"I didn't force her, but used my experience to convince her of my love; and then we agreed to marry," the groom said.

What was your first emotional reaction to the story? And did you view it from the side of the groom (good for the old boy!) or the bride (poor thing)? Or neither?

This may not be the best possible example. Let's try another one from some time ago:

A 107-year-old Malaysian woman has said she wants to get married again, for the 23rd time, as she fears her husband wants to leave her, says a report.

When Wook Kundor married four years ago to a man 70 years her junior their wedding photos made regional media.

But now she fears her husband will not return home after completing treatment for drug addiction in Kuala Lumpur.

She told reporters she felt "lonely" without her husband, ahead of the Muslim feast at the end of Ramadan.

How did your emotional checking go there? Was it the same as with the first story?

|

Go Read Katha 



She has a very good post on women in the labor force:

The Shriver report's central point is a truism of women's history: women's social, economic and political power is directly related to their presence in the workforce. The gains of the last forty years--in political representation, reproductive rights, education, combating violence against women--would never have happened without the steady and massive increase in the number of working women and the transformative effects of all those paychecks. Some might be tempted to spin the magic 50 percent to suggest that feminism's job is done. First it was dead because it was a failure; now it's dead because it was such a success.

Maybe too much of a success. As Reihan Salam worries in his article "The Death of Macho," "The problem of macho run amok and excessively compensated is now giving way to macho unemployed and undirected--a different but possibly just as destructive phenomenon." If 78 percent of those who have lost their jobs in this recession are men, that must mean women's gains are coming at men's expense, right? Actually, no. Women may have a bigger slice of a shrunken pie, but because the labor force is still quite gender-segregated, mostly they are not competing with men for work. The top ten jobs for women are, in order, secretary, nurse, elementary- and middle-school teacher, cashier, retail salesperson, health aide, retail supervisor, waitress, bookkeeper and receptionist. Men have lost more jobs than women in the recession because the ax has fallen more sharply in heavily male fields like construction and manufacturing than in female ones like healthcare and clerical work. As economist Barbara Bergmann wrote in an unpublished letter to the New York Times, "An important reason for the failure to reduce the gap between women's and men's average wages is that little progress has been made in reducing gender segregation in jobs that do not require a college degree." Interestingly, according to the Wall Street Journal, on the professional end of the workforce, where men and women are more likely to have the same or similar jobs, as many women as men have been laid off.

Katha is right about the extent of gender segregation* at work in occupations which don't require graduate degrees. It is greater than similar segregation measures between any ethnic groups you care to mention. In short, women are concentrated in traditionally female occupations, men in traditionally male occupations. The latter pay better but are currently experiencing greater job losses. That work is so segregated by gender is part of the reason why requiring equal pay for equal pay doesn't really close the gender gap in earnings that much.

But what I really wanted to write about is the beginning of the above quote: How women's labor market participation directly correlates with women's political and economic power.

It does, and some of the reasons are fairly obvious. For example, having a paycheck gives one more say in the family and more respect in those societies where women's unpaid labor is invisible or taken for granted, and having economic resources means that women can leave dysfunctional marriages or contribute towards a political cause or otherwise affect their own lives more.

But there are other ways in which this correlation might work. Men and women working in the same office or factory makes them share experiences, grievances and goals. A traditional society offers few general (as opposed to intra-family) opportunities for this and may even juxtapose the interests of men and women. Work and schools are places where the sexes can meet as individuals. Well, in an ideal situation.

Finally, the presence of women in the labor market should mean that firms and the wider society can no longer ignore the traditional work women have done but must adjust work so that this work, too, gets performed. This is not quite taking place in the United States. More pressure is needed.
----
*This segregation may or may not be voluntary. That depends on how one views the reasons that people have for ending up in a certain job category. Note also that gender segregation in jobs does not, in general, mean that women are physically as segregated from men. Men might work in the same office or factory, just not under the same occupational title.

|

The House Health Reform Proposal 



Here it is. It includes a public option:

Paving the way for a crucial vote on healthcare legislation in the next two weeks, the compromise unveiled by House Democratic leaders would create a nationwide government-run insurance plan but omit what many liberals consider the key to cost control.

According to senior lawmakers and aides, the so-called public option in the new compromise would not dictate what the plan can pay hospitals, doctors and other providers. Instead, the federal government would have to negotiate rates with providers, much as private insurers do.

Pelosi and her lieutenants made that concession in hopes of winning over conservative Democrats. Many of those lawmakers fear that payments based on lower Medicare rates -- the formula Pelosi originally supported -- would not be enough to sustain providers in rural areas.

Senior Democrats said that the concession represented real progress.

"Most of you all thought the public option was dead," said Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and a Pelosi ally. "Rumors of its death were greatly exaggerated."

The bit about the abortion coverage will be fought over endlessly as we all know:

The House bill also will include a complex mechanism for limiting the use of taxpayer subsidies for abortion services: Insurance companies that offer abortion coverage would be required to segregate funds received from consumers from subsidies provided by the federal government.

That provision has come under fire from many lawmakers who are opposed to abortion rights, and Democratic leaders continue to work on ways to resolve the issue, according to one senior aide who requested anonymity when discussing the negotiations.


|

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

TRIGGER WARNING!!! Truly Disgusting. TRIGGER WARNING!!! 



This:

Rape and robbery charges were filed this afternoon against four suspects in the gang rape of a 15-year-old Bay Area student who struggled against her attackers as more than a dozen people passed by but did nothing.

The girl was repeatedly raped, beaten and eventually robbed Saturday night at Richmond High School after she left a homecoming dance, according to police. The crime has sparked outrage and focused national attention on Richmond, a city of 104,000 northeast of San Francisco. City of Richmond

Manuel Ortega, 19, was charged with assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury and rape with a foreign object while acting in concert, said Dara Cashman, Contra Costa County senior deputy district attorney.

She said three minors were also charged but declined to release their names. Two of them, 15 and 17, were charged with rape with a foreign object while acting in concert. A 16-year-old was charged with robbery and rape by a foreign object while acting in concert, Cashman said.

All four suspects were also charged with special enhancements that could result in life sentences if they are convicted, according to Cashman.

In fact, the people did not just pass by and do nothing. Some of them joined in the fun:

As hundreds of students gathered in the school gym, outside in a dimly lit alley where the victim was allegedly raped, police say witnesses took photos. Others laughed.

"As people announced over time that this was going on, more people came to see, and some actually participated," Lt. Mark Gagan of the Richmond Police Department told CNN.

That quote comes from a piece which speculates about why it took so long for someone to call the police. The Kitty Genovese effect was mentioned and so was the idea that teenagers have brains like crocodiles might: incapable of making judgments or feeling empathy for the victim. What wasn't mentioned at all is whether these teenagers were male or female. Neither does the piece discuss the misogyny evident in all this or what has gone wrong in a society where this happens.

P.S. It was a female student who called the police.

|

Music For Tonight 





|

In Peshawar 



Over a hundred people have died in car bombings which coincide with Hillary Clinton's visit to Pakistan. Most of the dead are women and children, and though this is seen as a horrible attack on innocent bystanders it is important to remember that from the militants' point of view it is not at all so:

A representative of a shopkeepers association in the area in Peshawar said he and others had received threats from militants to ban women from shopping in the market.

The car bomb exploded between two narrow lanes of Meena Bazaar and Kochi Bazaar, an area frequented by women. Most of the bodies were charred and mutilated beyond recognition, making it difficult to identify the victims and estimate their number.

A senior minister, Bashir Bilour, said Tuesday night that the death toll, which had climbed through the day as the extent of the carnage emerged, had risen to 101. According to witnesses, as many as three clusters of shops on narrow lanes and passageways collapsed in the explosion, and fires raged out of control.

Hours afterward, people were still trying to dig bodies and survivors out of the rubble, witnesses said, and white smoke wreathed the wrecked buildings. Sahibzada Anees, the deputy coordination officer in Peshawar, said most of the dead were women and children, adding that some of the wounded were in critical condition.

I have nothing more to say.

|

More On Women And Health Insurance 



That most health insurance in the United States is tied to employment is known to have several problems. For instance, this makes it harder for people to become entrepreneurs, even if they have great ideas, because entrepreneurs must get their insurance from that individual insurance market at a higher price. It is also harder to change jobs in general if the new firm you are considering doesn't offer the same benefits as your current employer.

But here's how this might affect women over and above the general effect:

First, if those individual insurance policies discriminate against women (see post below) then starting your own firm is even more expensive for women than it is for men.

Second, the fact that family health insurance is tied to full-time work might have odd repercussions. Think about a couple with a baby. They want to cut their hours of work to spend more time with the new arrival. But if each of them cuts the hours by the same amount they might be left without health coverage for the family! So the likely outcome is that only one of them will cut those hours and that the one doing it is the one with the lower earnings etc..

That is usually the woman, and the long-run consequences of that are something I have written about many times before (lower future earnings, more difficulty in getting promotions later on, lower retirement income).

|

The Egg Americans 






Colorado is going to try to have them, again:

A version of the anti-abortion initiative soundly defeated by Colorado voters in 2008 is making its way to the 2010 ballot, this time reworked as an "egg-as-a-person" initiative.

This new version would move the legal definition of a person further back into the reproductive cycle, granting cells the full spectrum of citizen rights. Opposition groups, including Colorado genetic and fertilization researchers, say the law would have spiraling consequences, that it would put women at risk and freeze current work in medicine and reproduction.

zygote

Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA, the groups behind proposed Initiative 25, are undeterred by the fact that Coloradans voted against the test-run amendment last year by a margin of three to one. The new amendment is even farther reaching, moving the initial marker for the beginning of life from "fertilization" to "the beginning of the biological development of a human being."

Personhood Colorado Director and the initiative proponent Gualberto Garcia Jones told The Colorado Independent that the change was made "to be more comprehensive in our definition of a person" and was not done to make it more appealing to voters.

"It's intended to account for human beings who may be created through asexual reproduction in laboratories and used as raw material for research, organs, or stem cells. Fertilization would not have properly applied to asexually reproduced humans, but even asexually reproduced human beings have a definite biological beginning," Jones explained.

I keep thinking of that old ad: "Let Go Of My Eggo." Then I try to imagine all the laws that would have to be amended to treat Egg Americans right. Surely there would have to be some sort of surveillance of women's wombs to know if Egg Americans are threatened? What if a woman drinks in a bar? She might, just might, be giving alcohol to a minor. How can we know if we don't do a pregnancy check at the door?

And then all those women who work in adult environments might be guilty of taking a minor to places where they are not allowed to be. Every miscarriage would lead to a criminal investigation.

It's the old problem: We would suspect that there are people inside some people but not inside other people. These babushka dolls are not going to have men as the outermost layer and their rights will not be reduced but all fertile-age women just might be carrying an egg American inside them! It's not possible to enforce the rights of Egg Americans without making women into containers.

That is the odd aspect of the pro-birth debates: They argue for more rights for Egg Americans and therefore by necessity less rights for their containers. Yet none of this seems to affect the rights of men at all. That may be why I find it so distasteful to watch two men debate abortion on television or to read the opinions of Mr. Something-Or-Other (coughSaletancough) as THE expert on abortion. He has nothing at risk there, you know.

|

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

A Hoax? 



That was my first thought when I read through this post (via Eschaton):

I just received an email (from this guy's PR outfit) with the subject line:

President Obama's Attacks on Free Speech Opposed by Most Americans, Zogby/O'Leary Poll Finds

Here's one of the "questions" asked in the poll, tailor-made for Fox News Channel:

Federal Communications Commission Chief Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd wants the FCC to force good white people in positions of power in the broadcast industry to step down to make room for more African-Americans and gays to fill those positions. Do you agree or disagree that this presents a threat to free speech?

This would serve as an excellent example of biased polling if it were true. Is it from an actual poll? I have no idea, but it is listed in this file (which is chock full of bad polling examples). Now why would Zogby be involved in something which would kill its reputation forevermore?

In any case, the O'Leary reference is to Brad O'Leary, a right-wing consultant who specializes in Obama bashing.
|

Why Women Need The Public Option In Health Care 



Here are the reasons:

1. Individual health insurance policies are allowed to discriminate against women in many states in the sense that women pay more for identical policies (this is called gender rating). Two extreme examples: a 25-year old woman can be charged as much as 84% more than a 25-year old man for a policy which does NOT cover maternity care, and a 40-year old woman who does not smoke can be charged more for an identical policy than a 40-year old man who smokes. And maternity care is rarely covered.

These are the markets in which we are supposed to seek coverage today if we are not qualified to be covered under an employer group plan.

2. What about those group plans? They can charge different average premia based on the number of women firms hire, provided that the states have not made that practice illegal. Thus, firms in traditionally female dominated fields may be made to pay more for the very same package of health insurance than firms in a traditionally male dominated field.

What is going on here? The dry statistical explanation for gender rating is that women consume more health care than men, as a group, until a fairly advanced age, and because it is not possible to tell which women the high consumers are, all women are charged more. (After a certain age men's consumption increases and even exceeds women's average use levels. But soon after that point Medicare takes over and Medicare does not practice gender rating! Interesting, eh?)

Looked at in another way, every individual woman is sorta "punished" for women's higher medical care use, because the statistics assume that she is going to have the average use pattern of other women like her.
----
Link via Southern Beale

|

On Ovens 



I have been reading pro-birth sentiments about women. Women who have abortions were too lazy to use birth control, too weak to say no and too vain to carry the pregnancy to birth. A baby is the proper punishment for all these ethical failings! Men don't appear in those screeds at all, except as the saviors of unborn babies. I guess women get pregnant all on their own, inbetween botox treatments and trips to the mall, and they abort a pregnancy because it is inconvenient. "Inconvenient" is a word that crops up a lot.

But mostly the screeds are about life beginning at conception (what about all those fertilized cells in freezers?) and about the woman being a sort of oven which is to bake the babies until they are nicely done. Once the babies are out of the oven they are forgotten by the pro-birthers. But the ovens are not!

It really is all about who controls the ovens and who controls reproduction.

|

Monday, October 26, 2009

On Free Snacks 



This blog has none, sadly. But some time ago Senator Landrieu from Louisiana told us that there is no free lunch in health care, either:

Asked specifically about polling data showing the public option with strong national support, the conservative Democrat added, "I think that when people hear 'public option,' they hear 'free health care.' Everybody wants free health care. Everybody wants health care they don't have to pay for. The problem is that we as government and business have to pick up the tab, and as individuals. So I'm not at all surprised that the public option has been sold as free health care. But there is no free lunch."

It is of course true that there is no free lunch. Resources are spent to make that salad and that omelet and those resources are not then available for other uses. The same basic arguments apply to health care.

Where Landrieu goes wrong is in her assumption that we don't already grapple with the same dilemma. When an uninsured person goes to the ER, who pays for that visit? Take a few guesses and you will probably be right on all of them. Some of the costs will be passed over to the government, some to the charges insured patients pay.

|

On The Public Option 



I have not written much about the public option in the health care reform debate, mostly because discussing a formless ghost is pretty pointless, and a formless ghost is what the public option has been so far. Until we know who is allowed to join it and under what conditions we can't really tell what its effects would be on access or the costs of health care or the general competition in health insurance markets.

Now Harry Reid has brought out a Senate version which includes a public option with a right for individual states to opt out of it. I'm not sure how that would work in detail and those details do matter. But I can already imagine the pressure the individual insurance industry would put on states to opt out. It also looks to me as if the states most likely to opt out right now are the ones with the most uninsured, and that would be pretty bad. On the other hand, no state has opted out of Medicaid, so perhaps no state would ultimately opt out of the public option, either.

|

Today's Silly Thought 



I like broccoli. It's like a cabbage with a college degree.

----
Gah. Mark Twain said it first about cauliflowers.

|

Pussy, Pussy, Come here! 






It is not a cat I'm calling but Pussy Galore. A column on marital infidelity among athletes and sports commentators defines the enemy as Pussy Galore, and it would be very odd if those big burly men were waging a war on kittens. So it's probably the vagina with its frightening appendices that is the danger of he-men everywhere. It causes them to lose their jobs, their sports and their families, And All That Must Stop:

There are moments in our history when common sense forces us to change the rules in deference to a unique, unprecedented force of nature.

In the aftermath of ESPN baseball analyst Steve Phillips' sordid affair with Monica Lewinsky II, we can no longer deny the inadequacies of America's current relationship rules as they pertain to the battle against Pussy Galore.

It's time to change the rules of the game.

There's been too much carnage. She shredded Rick Pitino's reputation. She pushed Josh Hamilton off the wagon. She sweet-talked Charles Barkley into driving drunk. She hoodwinked Dirk Nowitzki into falling in love with a fugitive.

And now a 22-year-old slump-buster has apparently cost Steve Phillips his marriage and his credibility to analyze baseball.

It's not right. A little off-the-books nookie should not infringe on man's ability to discuss bats and balls in October.

Enough is enough. It's time we had an adult conversation about Ms. Galore and her ability to ruin lives, careers and reputations. We have given her this power and it's obvious she's abusing it.

If we don't soon take action, she threatens to bring down our democracy and wreck the overtime budget of ESPN's human resources department.

Bam! Pow! Take that, you horrible pussy.

I love this so much that I want to do a reversal, about Dick Peter, that horrible enemy of all womankind and all the havoc he has created. But the writer of that piece would never get it. In his world the vaginas walk on two feet while gunning for men in a war of destruction. Poor penises just rise and fall on their own accord, innocently.

So what is the solution to the pussy war? To allow for male infidelity, naturally:

Yes, I said it. It's time for change we can really believe in, a relaxing of sexual monogamy laws for men. Our antiquated system nearly cost us a president. And now, just days before Halloween and in the middle of a terrific American League Championship Series, it has cost us John Kruk's wingman.

...

Let's redefine marriage by putting sex in its proper place. Reproduction should remain sacred between a married man and woman. Sex should be enjoyed between consenting, mature adults.

I say a moderately famous man earning between $250K and $500K a year should be allowed a mistress he can see weekly, one week-long, $8,000 vacation he can take with his mistress and five strip club nights with his boys a year.

A moderately famous man earning between $500K and $1 million a year should be allowed a mistress he can see weekly and every other weekend, a 10-day, $15,000 vacation with his mistress, a $1,500-a-month, fully-furnished apartment for his mistress and seven strip club nights with his boys.

Any man earning more than $1 million a year should come and go as he damn well pleases.

How sweet to have an income-gradient on the number of Pussy Galores a man can have! It could be because they all have to be paid for.

Indeed, the whole column is so sweet and delicious! I rarely come across an explicit contemporary view of the world where women have no say over anything while the success of men greatly matters! Indeed, the guy compares us to steaks! Steaks:

Man is most happy when he is free to experience her pleasure in her varied forms, textures and styles of dress.

I like steak. Capital Grille is my favorite steakhouse. I could eat at Capital Grille seven nights a week. But, especially when I'm traveling, I like to experience different steakhouses. My occasional trips to Shula's, Morton's, Ruth's Chris and Smith and Wollensky in no way infringe upon my undying love and support of Capital Grille. In fact, shortly after I've digested my meal at a different steakhouse, I'm reminded just how much I love Cap Grille.

Consequently, if a man can afford a no-disease, no-pregnancy occasional night on the town without it affecting his financial and lovemaking responsibilities at home, as mature adults we must reach the point where we can allow this without breaking up the family or running a man from political office/off the set of a popular TV show.

I don't want to be a steak. Perhaps boiled eyeballs of a cod?

My fingers itch so hard to reverse all this, because such a reversal would not only treat all men as dicks but also tell married men that it's up to other women or some weird public opinion to decide whether their wives can be unfaithful and how many pool boys or gigolos they can have. But it really would be a waste of my time.

So just enjoy the piece while reversing it in your mind.

|

Sunday, October 25, 2009

PC World on the Pepsi Amp App (by Liz) 

As you probably know, I am neither as brave nor as wise, as our goddess Echidne. While she boldly explores the comment sections online, I avoid them at all costs. After all, I can hardly handle the stories themselves. In conducting research for Hello Ladies, I came across a troublesome article in PC World magazine.

But first some background: Recently, Pepsi released an iPhone app for its energy drink Amp called “Before You Score." The app was designed to help men "score" by providing pick up lines and other useful tidbits for 24 different types of women. You know, those categories we all fall into: business woman, tree hugger, married, twins. And, the app encouraged men to brag about their scores using social media tools like Facebook and Twitter. It prodded them to share details. Following an uproar on blogs and Twitter, the company eventually pulled the app.

JR Raphael, PC World writer, said in an article entitled, "Sex and Smartphones: 5 Apps Edgier Than Pepsi's 'Amp Up'," the app was pulled when people complained of "stereotyping and sexism." He's wrong. It wasn't just the stereotyping --it was the encouraging men to brag about their conquests. That's more than sexist. That's irresponsible and potentially dangerous in a rape culture.

Then he goes on to write, "The objections to Pepsi's app included claims that it objectified women and turned sex into a game. The people lodging these complaints, I have to assume, have never picked up a copy of Men's Health or Cosmo (or watched a single movie made since 1967)." So is he saying that because women have been objectified for years, we shouldn't get upset at any new offense? I believe he is.

Raphael implies, by comparing the Amp app to other apps that remind men when their girlfriends are menstruating or that provide texts to help men "chat with the hottie whose number you got," that women are just humorless and opposed to anything sexual. But Raphael is comparing merely stupid apps with a potentially dangerous app. Reminding men to send email to their dates is very different than telling men to "raise your expectations" with regards to scoring. According to his byline, Raphael "swims in satire." I failed to get the humor in his post. But, oh I forgot, I am humorless.

To be fair to PC World, they ran another piece on the Pepsi app. This one by David Coursey, "Pepsi Removes "Amp Up" iPhone App, Humanity Rejoices," was encouraging. Coursey says, "Complaining about this application isn't just "political correctness," it's wanting to live in a world where men and women are treated equally and with respect." And Coursey is not being sarcastic.
|

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Saturday Cat Blogging 







(Picture of Pippin by FeraLiberal.)

|

Weekly Poetry Slam Thread posted by A Mc 

Will Gang Rape Victims Be Gagged by The Greatest Debate Club?

Thirty Republican senators
vote to shield rapists, from lawsuits
Franken bill might get watered down in committee.
Too awful for levity, too intentional for tragedy
In the greatest debate club, they call it democracy,
the Free Press ....... as unperturbed as the Values Voters,
Notably silent when the sex is forced and violent.
|

Friday, October 23, 2009

Domestic violence & homelessness (by Linda Osmundson) 



"Half of all women and children experiencing homelessness are fleeing domestic violence," notes the National Coalition for the Homeless. Linda Osmundson, executive director of CASA (Community Action Stops Abuse) in St. Petersburg, Fla., since 1989, gives a statistic that encompasses more effects of violence: "At least 75% of women who are homeless are directly or indirectly victims of domestic violence and/or rape either as a child witness, or a child or adult victim."

Last week, I wrote about how homeless programs need to remember women, including ones who stay in wretched homes for fear of living on the streets. The post below is by Linda, who I've quoted before. She has created a story about Estella, a composite of women who've come to CASA.
-- Suzie
----------------
Estella came to the CASA shelter looking a little worked over. Her hair was matted and her clothing was not very clean. She clutched her meager belongings to her in a garbage bag like many battered women. Looking into her eyes, we could tell she had lived a harder life than some of us. Her skin was leathery and tan, and she had visible scars on her arms and legs and some open lesions. She told the CASA advocate that she was hungry in her gravelly voice, and we heated a bowl of spaghetti left over from last night’s dinner. She gulped it down quickly and asked for more. Her eyes darted around the room as she ate.

She was younger than she looked, we discovered when we completed the ubiquitous paperwork for her intake. She had been living here and there on the streets and had no permanent address or any family in the area whose names she could give us for an emergency contact. When we asked her when she had last lived in a real house she vaguely answered, “… a year or two.”

When we asked her to tell us why she had called the CASA hotline at 4 a.m., she sighed and said, “You are the place that takes in those battered women, aren’t you?” Then she launched into the story of her life. Like most battered women who end up homeless, she had lived a life filled with violence since childhood, when her parents beat her with a belt and left her alone without food for whole days. Estella got pregnant as a teenager, and her parents put her out of their home and wouldn’t let her come back even though she lost the baby. She bounced in and out of relationships with men who seemed nice at first but then “turned mean,” as she described it. She never finished high school. She described being viciously raped by a man she’d been staying with and thought was nice. But, when the police were called, she said they looked at her funny and started asking her questions like: Did she let him into the house? So, she just clammed up and told them that she would be fine, until they left in frustration.

Eventually Estella became a permanent street person. At least street people didn’t ask questions and there was a sort of order about the streets that worked for her. She felt free, but always leery of the men who came in and out of her life, leaving their physical and emotional scars. The law of the streets for Estella and most women like her was to find a man to hang out with who became her “protector” from all of the other men. It was sort of an unwritten contract that he could do what he wanted with her and in return he would keep other men away.

When Estella tired of this life, she would retreat to a homeless shelter, but they never listened to her or made her feel safe or understood the violence that had punctuated of her life nearly forever. Sometimes she called a battered woman’s shelter, but they usually didn’t admit her when they found out that she had been homeless. For her, homelessness was just more violence, more sleepless nights and exhausted days.

Women who are homeless are nearly all, like Estella, victims of sexual and physical violence. The violence of child abuse, rape and domestic violence frame their lives and make them feel hopeless. Many domestic violence centers refuse to shelter homeless women because they are not in immediate danger from their last abuser, who is in jail or some other such “safe” location. So, she is not in imminent danger according to them! At CASA, the staff is trained to understand that homelessness and violence go hand in hand for women. Living on the streets is not very safe for men and completely unsafe for women. Like Estella, women must make alliances with men for a kind of protection. Many women turn to alcohol or drugs to self-medicate away the pain and fear that are their constant companions. While at CASA, women can talk to advocates that have a special understanding of the connections between abuse, violence and addictions, since some CASA staff have had the same experience.

Estella met other women at the shelter who sounded like they were involved with the same partners who had treated Estella so badly. In support groups they laughed together at their similar experiences and they cried together, too. Estella learned that CASA offered free support groups around the community during the day and in the evenings that she could attend every week or whenever she felt down. CASA even offered support groups for women in jail and substance abuse treatment programs.

Estella set some goals for herself and began to feel a little better and safer each day. It was good to have a shower every day. An advocate gave her a gift certificate to CASA's thrift store. She helped with chores, cooked at the shelter some nights, and began to relax and feel normal. Some of the women celebrated successful applications for injunctions for protection with the help of a volunteer advocate. They were scared to stand up and talk to a judge in front of others, but it felt empowering, too, when the judge awarded a permanent injunction.

Then there were the children. Estella found some of them a little annoying because they were always underfoot, but she liked holding the babies sometimes. She also appreciated being in the room on the third floor where there were only women. She even found a couple of the books in the library that were easy to read. Estella began to feel hopeful. She could not forget her past but now she felt like there could be a future that might have light.

Figuring out where she would live after she left the shelter was a problem. Estella had never really kept a job very long. She didn’t read very well, although she had learned to compensate for that over the years. When an employer discovered that she couldn’t decipher simple written instructions, she was usually terminated. Subsidized housing was usually for women with children. There wasn’t much out there for single women, another reason why she had to attach herself to the first man that came along. Estella could stay for 6 months in the shelter's housing. She didn’t know where she would go after that but she wasn’t going to think about it now.
|

Question for the weekend (by Suzie) 



Overachiever? Perfectionist? Get your worth from what you do? Check, check, check. If I were going to have a tombstone, it would read: “I could have done more.”

What might yours say?
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

Alli isn't in trouble. She likes to be in the middle of a ball of dogs. Snoopy is sitting on her, Bella is figuring how to get in on the action, and Noah wants in, too.
|

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Bye Bye, Mr. Kanazawa 



My series below is over, but it seems truly worthwhile to contrast two quotes from Kanazawa's blog posts, because I find them an excellent summary of what is ultimately wrong with Evolutionary Psychology.

First, here he talks about the supremacy of biology over all social sciences. Indeed, the post is titled "Social Sciences Are Branches of Biology." I quote:

That, unfortunately, is the sorry state of social sciences today. Social sciences in the 21st century are where physical sciences were in the 17th century. Social scientists believe in the firm separation between human sciences (social sciences) about the behavior of human species, and nonhuman sciences (biology) about the behavior of all other species in nature, governed by entirely different sets of laws and principles. It would be a huge step forward in the history of science to break down this wall as well, and subsume social sciences under biology.

I will conclude this post with another favorite quote of mine from Weinberg.

The reason we give the impression that we think that elementary particle physics is more fundamental than other branches of physics is because it is.

The reason we give the impression that we think that evolutionary psychology is more fundamental than other branches of social and behavioral sciences is because it is.

Emphasis is mine.

The second quote I want to bring up is the one where Kanazawa happily admits that he has not taken any biology classes since high school:

As an aside, Mr. Lal was trained in mechanical engineering and currently works as a software engineer. He does not have any background in psychology, let alone evolutionary psychology, and has not taken any biology class since high school. (But then again, neither have I.)

Emphasis again is mine.

Let's put these two ideas together: First, all social science are really just biology, but the foremost of them is Evolutionary Psychology. Second, one of the official propagandists of Evolutionary Psychology admits that he hasn't actually studied biology.

That sounds pretty troubling.

|

The Making Of The Model Body 



For women, naturally. Air America has a slide-show of some of the most interesting recent photo-shopped female fashion images. These are a biased sample, of course, as we have no idea how many other images have been altered in this manner.

In some ways I find the subtle changes scarier than the silly pictures where a woman's stick-body is given a humongous head. The latter are pretty obvious, after all, but not realizing that these people brush away most every wrinkle or even slightly sagging flesh does truly contribute to unrealistic expectations about what people should look like. And I don't even know what to say about the skin tone changes.

|

Reader Appreciation Day 



I don't tell you often enough how erudite and marvelous you really are. My recent travels in all sorts of comments threads remind me how very lucky I am. And yes, of course you can send me money.


Apropos of nothing, I was reading through the book into which I scribbled as a teenage goddess. It has the usual teenage angst, lots of stuff about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket, lots of imagined sex (hee) and some very odd poems about mathematics. Reading it is like meeting someone I once knew but have now forgotten. I have a lot of empathy for her, even when I laugh at some of her pronouncements.

She was a proto-feminist, too. I have translated one poem I wrote at age sixteen for you:

Suddenly
I found myself in the poem I read:

It spoke of women,
of flesh-eating petals
of slack roses dangling
of meals which are eaten with
soft knives at night.

There are no sorrowing women
(it says)
Only a dank smell in old velvet.

And I turned the page
with these bones
which shine through the skin of my wrists

Not with my ovaries
not with my bloody womb
not with my vagina.

These bones are what
they do not lust after.
These bones are irrevocably
Me.



|

On Screening For Prostate and Breast Cancers 



The American Cancer Society is modifying their previous whole-hearted support for screening in the case of certain types of cancers, including breast cancer:

The cancer society's decision to reconsider its message about the risks as well as potential benefits of screening was spurred in part by an analysis published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Brawley said.

In it, researchers report a 40 percent increase in breast cancer diagnoses and a near doubling of early stage cancers, but just a 10 percent decline in cancers that have spread beyond the breast to the lymph nodes or elsewhere in the body. With prostate cancer, the situation is similar, the researchers report.

If breast and prostate cancer screening really fulfilled their promise, the researchers note, cancers that once were found late, when they were often incurable, would now be found early, when they could be cured. A large increase in early cancers would be balanced by a commensurate decline in late-stage cancers. That is what happened with screening for colon and cervical cancers. But not with breast and prostate cancer.

Still, the researchers and others say, they do not think all screening will — or should — go away. Instead, they say that when people make a decision about being screened, they should understand what is known about the risks and benefits.

What is happening here? The researchers speculate that screening might pick up a lot of "innocent" tumors: tumors which might never grow or which might even go away on their own, but that dangerous tumors might grow too fast for screening to be of much use. This might mean that much of the treatment of cancers found in early detection could be excessive:

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment as a result of cancer screening are a major concern. It is estimated that for every 100 women who are told they have breast cancer, as many as 30 have cancers that are so slow-growing they are unlikely to be life-threatening.

In the case of prostate cancer, for every 100 men with diagnoses, as many as 70 have cancers that if left untreated would never have harmed them. Even for men with aggressive prostate cancer, whether screening improves the odds of survival remains a matter of debate.

That excessive treatment is not desirable should be obvious. Who wants to be cut or poisoned or radiated if it is not necessary for survival? Such excessive treatment also costs money. The obvious problem here is how to distinguish the "innocent" tumors from the ones which do demand immediate attention.

As an aside, the professional views on screening for cancers have always been much more complicated than the recommendations consumers get. To give you an example of that, suppose that some type of cancer can be detected very early with screening but that knowing about its existence doesn't ultimately help with treatment or survival rates. Suppose, also, that two individuals both develop the cancer at the same time and live equally long with it, but one gets screened early and the other one only gets diagnosed at a late stage in the disease. Any crude comparisons of these outcomes would then suggest that screening helps people with cancer live longer, when that is not in fact the case.

That example does not mean that screening wouldn't be beneficial if early detection allows for better intervention methods. But finding something early is not a treatment in itself.

|

Today's Action Alert 



WAM which works for gender justice needs your help:

We know that there's more support for gender justice in media than there is for causes like that. But we need your help to prove it. Right now your donation to launch the new WAM! can count more than ever. It's easy - but ONLY IF YOU DO IT NOW.

From right now until 3PM ET TODAY (Thursday), we're competing in America's Giving Challenge. All we have to do to win $1000 is get the highest number of $10+ donors out of the charities competing on our day.

Can you give at least $10 today to help launch the new WAM! with an extra $1,000? We really can win if we all pitch in.

Right now they are losing to Make Abortion Impossible or something like that. That's not good at all. Besides, WAM does excellent work.

If you can afford to help WAM, you can do so here.


|

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The Kanazawa Question. Part III. 



This is the final part in the series, I hope, and it is about the biases I have noted in Satoshi Kanazawa's blog posts at Psychology Today. (Part I of the series is here and Part II here.)

I spot at least four types of bias in Kanazawa's writings. The first one concerns which data are picked as evidence and which data are completely ignored. I have given an example of that in the first post of this series.

The second one is about the types of issues within Evolutionary Psychology Kanazawa chooses to analyze. His predominant focus is on sexual selection, as if the other kinds of selection pressures somehow mattered much less. And even within that narrower field he chooses to ignore certain topics, such as female infidelity, now established to exist among chimpanzees (if infidelity even has a meaning in that context) and also among humans. But Kanazawa only discusses this as an aside while striving to explain to married women why they should be pleased with their spouse's infidelity:

The more desirable a man is (the more resourceful, the higher his social status, the physically more attractive), the larger the number of other women who would want to have sex with him regardless of whether he is married, either in an attempt to steal him away from his current mate (mate poaching) or in an attempt to be impregnated by him so that their child will have his superior genes but then to turn around and pass off the child as their current long-term mates' genetic offspring (cuckoldry)

That this aside suggests a kind of polygamy practiced by women (in the sense of having sex with more than one man) is not something Kanazawa wants to pursue.

That's because of his third bias, which is the desire to mostly view women as passive objects of male lust except for the fact that they are also in control of everything. Honest.

To see what I mean, note that Kanazawa has written nine posts on the Barbie doll as the evolutionary ideal. But why spend so much time discussing the characteristics of the gender which does all the sexual selecting? That doesn't seem to make much sense, especially given this statement by Kanazawa:

The power of female choice becomes quite apparent in a simple thought experiment. Imagine for a moment a society where sex and mating were entirely a male choice; individuals have sex whenever and with whomever men want, not whenever and with whomever women want. What would happen in such a society? Absolutely nothing, because people would never stop having sex! There would be no civilization in such a society, because people would not do anything besides have sex. This, incidentally, is the reason why gay men never stop having sex: there are no women in their relationships to say no. Sexually active straight men on average have had 16.5 sex partners since age 18; gay men have had 42.8.

In reality, however, women do often say no to men. (In my experience, they always do.) This is why men throughout history have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint portraits and cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software, in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. There would be no civilization, no art, no literature, no music, no Beatles, no Microsoft, if sex and mating were a male choice. Men have built (and destroyed) civilizations in order to impress women so that they might say yes. Women are the reason men do everything.

OK. Let's take this argument seriously (and ignore the insults in it, too). If men indeed are willing and able to have sex 24/7, why would they ever have bothered to check out which babes are the most fertile? Each act of sex takes only a few minutes, after all, and the prehistoric day on the savanna is a long one. It doesn't seem to make sense for such men to be so choosy about women. They have plenty of sperm and plenty of stamina and they can go on all day long. Never mind if they happen to have sex with a few tree trunks or whatever, there's plenty more left for all the babes, right?

That whole quote is pretty nasty to us women, because it implies that all civilization is created by men alone. But that's what comes from ahistoricity, I guess. Note also that there are other ways of explaining the benefits of civilization than the use of sexual spurs.

It is hard to avoid the feeling that Satoshi Kanazawa really doesn't like women very much. Just try reading through his blog posts on Psychology Today without getting that feeling. Then try to think of reasons why Psychology Today lets him post without even comments. Makes a girl scratch her blond head, it does.

Here is the best example of the way he shows us how much he loves us*:

Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception. It is true that, in all human societies, men largely control all the money, politics, and prestige. They do, because they have to, in order to impress women. Women don't control these resources, because they don't have to. What do women control? Men. As I mention in an earlier post, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women.

Funny, isn't it? Let's pass by that zoological blunder and move straight to the meat of the argument, the one I have bolded for you. So women are actually in power, even though they don't control the resources, because any reasonably attractive young woman has as much power over men as the male ruler of the world does over women?

Yup. Any seventeen-year old blond babe has power over the richest man on earth! Well, at least for a few minutes. Even half an hour. And she needs no laws to hold onto those resources that she now controls. For a few minutes, at least.

I'm looking at the cheese sandwich by my computer, waiting to be eaten. It's kinda blond, you know, and very attractive to me. If it could negotiate, it might ask for all my resources in exchange for a few bites.

But then I'd just go downstairs and make another cheese sandwich. Sigh. Remember that this man is the scientific fundamentalist who has the hard facts on evolution.

That whole post on feminism is really very nasty. According to Kanazawa the women with the most power on this earth would be found in places like Afghanistan.

The fourth bias Kanazawa has is a very odd one, given his desire to grab all objective science (mineMINEmine) into his own hands. It's an anti-science bias of the weirdest sort. Wait for this. It's worth it:

As an aside, Mr. Lal was trained in mechanical engineering and currently works as a software engineer. He does not have any background in psychology, let alone evolutionary psychology, and has not taken any biology class since high school. (But then again, neither have I.) The fact that someone like Mr. Lal can offer a very insightful explanation of a puzzling phenomenon from an evolutionary psychological perspective suggests that Robert Wright's words in his 1994 book The Moral Animal are still true today: "For now, this is the state of evolutionary psychology: so much fertile terrain, so few farmers." The field of evolutionary psychology is still wide open. Anyone who is interested in the topic and has bright ideas, like Mr. Lal, can make a contribution to the field.

Bolds mine.

So.

That was fun, wasn't it? Now I'm going to eat that sandwich.
----
*This is actually supposed to be from a review of Susan Pinker's book.
If you are interested in an actual critique of it, read this excellent series at Slate. It also takes apart Louise Brizandine's pot-boiler.

|

The Kanazawa Question. Part II. 



To continue our introductory tea-party with Satoshi Kanazawa, I was also struck by the ahistoricity of his arguments:

Blondes And Evolution

For instance, Kanazawa argues that men have always preferred blondes, because blond hair signals youth in women and young women are more fertile. Thus, men who were drawn to youth left more offspring and also passed on this desire for youth to their male offspring. But remember that these preferences were rigidly fixed about 30,000 years ago on the African savanna. Did blond babes wander around there, stroking mammoths and gathering flowers?

And if they did, how come aren't women blond all over the world today? They should be, based on that basic story.

To solve this dilemma, Kanazawa suddenly moves the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA, the term for the mythical place where all the gene-setting is supposed to have happened 30,000 years ago) to Northern Europe:

In Africa, where our ancestors evolved for most of their evolutionary history, people (men and women) mostly stayed naked. In such an environment, men could accurately assess a woman's age by the distribution of fat on her body or by the firmness of her breasts (as I discuss in a previous post). Men in cold climates did not have this option, because women (and men) bundled up in such environments. This is probably why blonde hair evolved in cold climates as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth. Men then evolved a predisposition to prefer to mate with women with blonde hair in response; those who did on average had greater reproductive success than those who did not, because, unbeknownst to them, they ended up mating with younger, healthier women with greater reproductive value and fertility.

See how easy that was? But what about the Aleut women? Surely they should have fair hair, too?

There's another problem with this explanation, and that is the fact that much of the Scandinavian fair hair doesn't actually change with age until the time when it goes gray. It's not a great indicator of youth. (I can't help trying to imagine what kind of a society these people were supposed to have in the EEA. Didn't they know anybody? Did men walk around on the frozen tundra, checking out heads? It seems much more likely that people 30,000 years ago lived in small societies where everybody knew everybody else.) -- Then there's the HUGE problem created if we allow for several EEAs as Kanazawa seems to be arguing. People would then have different evolutionary psychologies, right? Or could have them, depending on whether they were fixed on the tundra or the savanna.

I call Kanazawa's approach ahistoric because it takes something from the Western culture and interprets it as an evolutionary trait. But of course Kanazawa's field of Evolutionary Psychology is also explicitly ahistoric in that it ignores cultural evolution and all proximal causes for the events it studies. Good researchers in the field try to control for those. Others don't even try. Yet the proximal explanations are often the more obvious ones, and to simply not discuss them makes the offered evolutionary explanation look even iffier.

Take Kanazawa's discussion on polygyny (the practice of one man marrying several women):

Once married to a man, it is in the reproductive interest of the woman to monopolize access to all of his resources (material or otherwise) so that he would invest them in her joint children with him. Any sexual relationship he may have with other women might potentially jeopardize her exclusive access to his resources, so obviously it is in her interest to make sure that he does not have sexual relationships with other women.

The problem, however, is that, as I explain in a previous post, mating among all mammalian species (including humans) is a female choice; it happens whenever and with whomever the female wants, not whenever and with whomever the male wants. The more desirable a man is (the more resourceful, the higher his social status, the physically more attractive), the larger the number of other women who would want to have sex with him regardless of whether he is married, either in an attempt to steal him away from his current mate (mate poaching) or in an attempt to be impregnated by him so that their child will have his superior genes but then to turn around and pass off the child as their current long-term mates’ genetic offspring (cuckoldry).

The most cursory glance at the history of marital customs suggests that mating has not been a female choice in many cultures. Indeed, arranged and forced marriages were (and still are) common, and so were severe legal punishments of women who did make their own choices outside marriage. Kanazawa does not discuss this, because his approach is ahistoric and because he assumes no evolution in the last 30,000 years.

The Sterile Box Of The EEA

What is it that we get in place of history? The sterile box of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation.

Remember that evolutionary psychology is based on the arguments(not necessarily facts) that evolution stopped about 30,000 years ago, that human psychology was fixed at that time, and that all this happened (in most accounts) somewhere in Africa. It is obviously of tremendous interest to understand what that place, the EEA, was like.

But on the whole Kanazawa doesn't enlighten us on that. Based on his blog posts, it was just a large empty box into which goes anything Kanazawa likes and nothing he dislikes. A theoretical construct, if you like. But in reality those prehistoric humans must have had ways to make a living, a climate to contend with and some form of family or tribe to belong to. Many of the Evolutionary Psychology arguments ignore such constraints and replace them with parables coming from the sperm and the egg. A frequent assumption seems to be that the men had access to a vast number of female strangers and that they had to learn how to pick the most fertile ones quickly. But such a tribal setting sounds most unlikely to me.

It is this sterility of the EEA concept which is its main attraction to the many amateur Evolutionary Psychologists. It allows for all sorts of JustSo stories, intellectual games of trying to figure out why everything in today's society might have been an evolutionary adaptation once. But it is that very sterility which means that alternative JustSo stories can work every bit as well. The ones you pick tell a lot about your personal biases, by the way.

Which brings me to the final topic in this introduction to Kanazawa, to be described in the third and last post of this series.

|

The Kanazawa Question. Part I. 



Is whether I should write about professor Satoshi Kanazawa or not. On the one hand, I have already done so to the tune of thousands of words on this blog, and he is not that interesting.

On the other hand, he has offered himself as the face of the kooky kind of evolutionary psychology, often called Evolutionary Psychology with capital letters, the kind which discusses male virility, big-breasted babes and coy women, the kind which demands to be taken seriously as a biological science, without actually doing any gene research, for instance. Or very much properly controlled empirical research, either. Never mind. The Evolutionary Psychologists plan to take over all social sciences (they actually do plan this)! Then everything will be explained by big-breasted but coy women and men who hump all day long!

Most of it would be quite hilarious except for the fact that Kanazawa now writes a blog on Psychology Today (without allowing comments, by the way), and what he says in those blog posts of his is pretty dangerous stuff. The Men's Rights Advocates worship him as a semi-god, and anything like that must be based on some sort of woman-bashing. And bash women Kanazawa does, most excellently. For instance, men have created EVERYTHING: art, literature, technology, just to impress women and to get them to fuck them. And because our Pleistocene-based genetic makeup (of which we have no actual evidence) is fixed as it was 30,000 years ago (see post below for more on this), this is how things shall always be. Take that, you stupid women.

That is all pretty bad, isn't it? Kanazawa also argues that sexual harassment is a natural guy thing, whether guys treat you as one of them or whether they treat you as a coy object to be impregnated, and all this appears to deserve some attention.

On the third hand, it might be better to just let Kanazawa go on, because what he says is such bad PR for the whole field of Evolutionary Psychology that we might get better evolutionary psychology sooner. What do you think? Are readers able to judge really stoopid stuff when they see it?

I'm not convinced of that, and because nobody else will stoop to writing about Evolutionary Psychology and especially Kanazawa's misogynistic versions of it I probably should. The minute someone properly qualified wants to pick up the task I shall do a Snoopy dance. (Though what "properly qualified" might mean in that field is most unclear.)


Are you with me so far? Let's go and get acquainted with Satoshi Kanazawa, The Scientific Fundamentalist. Yes, that's what he calls himself. His blogs also tell us that he is giving us the hard facts about evolution. That's because he has a time-machine which allows him to flit back-and-forth to the Pleistocene era and because he has Secret Knowledge not yet available for geneticists. Mmm.

Hard Scientist.

That's how Kanazawa sees himself. But his tone is all wrong for a scientist. I know many social scientists, and almost to a person they are fairly humble creatures when it comes to their actual work, admitting uncertainties and discussing alternative ways of looking at problems. I have never met one who would yell at you about him having all the truths, standing there with his arms folded ready to punch the first person questioning anything. He is almost threatening, you know. Anyone who criticizes him is already in the wrong, because he holds the TROOF!

That doesn't sound like a scientist to me. It sounds like a religious fanatic, actually.

The ethical scientist.

Kanazawa argues that it is important to make a distinction between "what is" and "what ought to be". He is only addressing the former! That means he is very very neutral, very scientific (and don't look at his data!). Of course "what ought to be" often translates into "what is" over time and so on, but the basic premise is clear enough: He is going to avoid value judgments.

And then he writes a post about why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary and evil! That is a value judgment, my fried friend (left that typo in as it's funny). That scientific neutrality didn't last very long, did it now?

What about all those hard facts

Kanazawa alone controls? His recent book, called Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters*, has been criticized for statistical mistakes which refute the results of the study the title refers to: In fact, we have NO IDEA if beautiful people have more daughters than ugly people. Kanazawa appears to have ignored this criticism altogether, going on as if his conclusions still apply.

One of his blog posts discusses the ideal waist-to-hip ratio and its universality in all cultures:

The outcomes are remarkably uniform in every experiment in every country; most men prefer women with a .7 waist-to-hip ratio, and most women prefer men with a .9 waist-to-hip ratio.

But in fact at least two studies have demonstrated that this presumed universality of the .7 ratio is false (I haven't checked on the .9 ratio). Men in different cultures choose differently, and extending allowable ratios towards a humanly impossible wasp waist in one study made that the most preferred choice of many men.

I am not sure why Kanazawa ignores the studies which contradict his argument. Perhaps he isn't following literature outside his own writings that much? Or perhaps his "hard facts" can never be changed by evidence. Who knows?

A few more examples:

In a different post Kanazawa argues that women have always had a longer average life expectancy than men:

However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.

But this is in fact, untrue, if we look at historical evidence. That women currently live longer, on average, is true. But this was not always the case. (Incidentally, note the use of extreme values in his reproductive success argument. He compares women to the worst of men, not to the great inventors and sperm-flingers he usually talks about. Now those guys have it good!)


Later in the same post Kanazawa states:

Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men. The sex gap in happiness (in women's favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men's favor) narrowed. Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do. As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are. As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy.

That quote has not just one but three errors. First, women were not "a lot happier than men." Second, women today do NOT earn as much as men, on average (check out my series on the gender gap in earnings). Third, the construct "as a result" is incorrect, because the study Kanazawa refers to explicitly rejected the idea that women in the labor force or high-earning women were the cause of the supposed increases in female unhappiness.

These are by no means the only examples of questionable "facts" in Kanazawa's posts, but they should suffice to demonstrate that just calling facts "hard" ain't necessarily so.

That's it for Part I of the Kanazawa question. Part II addresses a few additional problems with his approach and Part III his biases.
----
*The Amazon reviews of the book are fascinating, because someone is trolling them. Also, see this discussion there.

|

On Evolutionary Psychology 



If you happened to have read some of those Kanazawa rants at Psychology Today, you might feel ready for a somewhat more in-depth treatment of some of the issues that bother me in evolutionary psychology.

An excellent primer is
Smith, E.A., Borgerhoff Mulder, M. and K. Hill (2001). Controversies in the evolutionary social sciences: A guide to the perplexed. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16(3):128-135.



It is well worth the effort it might take to read, because it clearly explains the limitations and problems with evolutionary psychology.
|

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Echidne The Girl Detective 



Found out something odd. A story at New Scientist, about possible evolution of humans today, goes like this:

Women of the future are likely to be slightly shorter and plumper, have healthier hearts and longer reproductive windows. These changes are predicted by the strongest proof to date that humans are still evolving.

Medical advances mean that many people who once would have died young now live to a ripe old age. This has led to a belief that natural selection no longer affects humans and, therefore, that we have stopped evolving.

"That's just plain false," says Stephen Stearns, an evolutionary biologist at Yale University. He says although differences in survival may no longer select "fitter" humans and their genes, differences in reproduction still can. The question is whether women who have more children have distinguishing traits which they pass on to their offspring.

To find out, Stearns and his colleagues turned to data from the Framingham Heart Study, which has tracked the medical histories of more than 14,000 residents of the town of Framingham, Massachusetts, since 1948 – spanning three generations in some families.
Pass it on

The team studied 2238 women who had passed menopause and so completed their reproductive lives. For this group, Stearns's team tested whether a woman's height, weight, blood pressure, cholesterol or other traits correlated with the number of children she had borne. They controlled for changes due to social and cultural factors to calculate how strongly natural selection is shaping these traits.

Quite a lot, it turns out. Shorter, heavier women tended to have more children, on average, than taller, lighter ones. Women with lower blood pressure and lower cholesterol levels likewise reared more children, and – not surprisingly – so did women who had their first child at a younger age or who entered menopause later. Strikingly, these traits were passed on to their daughters, who in turn also had more children.

Then have a look at the picture they are using next to the story to show the kind of slim and tall woman who is going to go extinct:





A bit biased, eh? Note the suit and the briefcase.

|

FairAndBalanced Fox News 



Something to clear your palate while working on today's menu from me.




|

The New Career Choice For Women: High-End Prostitution! 




Did you ever read Freakonomics by Steven D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner? I never did, what with being an economist-n-all. Anyway, these gentlemen have written a new book, called Superfreakonomics, and the Internet is abuzz with the way they discuss global warming in it. As in "wrong". But few are probably going to feel that there's anything wrong with the way they discuss prostitution:

There is one labour market women have always dominated: prostitution. Its business model is built upon a simple premise. Since time immemorial and all over the world, men have wanted more sex than they could get for free. So what inevitably emerges is a supply of women who, for the right price, are willing to satisfy this demand. But what is the right price?

Sudhir Venkatesh, a sociologist at Columbia University in New York, spent his graduate school years in Chicago, embedding himself with a street gang that practically ran a South Side neighbourhood. Along the way, he became an authority on the neighbourhood's underground economy, and began collecting data on the local prostitutes.

Knowing that traditional survey methods don't necessarily produce reliable results for a sensitive topic like prostitution, Venkatesh hired trackers to stand on street corners or sit in brothels with the prostitutes, directly observing some facets of their transactions and gathering more intimate details from them as soon as the customers were gone.

Most of the trackers were former prostitutes — an important credential because such women were more likely to get honest responses. Venkatesh also paid the prostitutes for participating in the study. If they were willing to have sex for money, he reasoned, surely they'd be willing to talk about having sex for money. And they were.

It turns out that the typical street prostitute in Chicago works 13 hours a week, performing 10 sex acts during that period, and earns an hourly wage of approximately $27. So her weekly take-home pay is roughly $350. This includes an average of $20 that a prostitute steals from her customers and drugs accepted in lieu of cash.

Their income of roughly $18,000 a year is next to nothing compared with what even low-rent prostitutes in Chicago earned 100 years ago. A woman working in a "dollar house" took home the equivalent of about $76,000 today annually, while prostitutes at the Everleigh Club, the city's top brothel, could earn the equivalent of about $430,000.

Why has the prostitute's wage fallen so far? Because demand has fallen dramatically. Not the demand for sex. That is still robust. But prostitution, like any industry, is vulnerable to competition.

That competition, dear ladies, is you giving it out for free! So let's return to the beginning of that quote: " Since time immemorial and all over the world, men have wanted more sex than they could get for free. So what inevitably emerges is a supply of women who, for the right price, are willing to satisfy this demand. But what is the right price?"

So why would the supply of "free" sex have risen? What is so different from the new generation of women,eh? Are they rather stupid, not to realize that you'd make more by charging for fucking? Or let's put it in reverse: Why was the supply of "free" sex so much less in the past?

Levitt and Dubner don't seem to answer these questions for us (at least in the above excerpt I found). But they are very important questions, after all, and their answers have something to do with the way societies punished women who "supplied" "free" sex. You can still get stoned for it in a few places on earth.

By not answering these questions Levitt and Dubner make it sound as if men would always want more sex than they can get "freely", whatever the societal setup. Yet the amount they appear to get has risen over time, and in theory, at least, it's possible to imagine a society where the "supply" of "free" sex would be enough to cause the prostitution markets to die out.

Is it really true that prostitutes in the past earned so very much? Even those at the bottom of pay scale? The excerpt above compares today's street prostitutes to prostitutes who worked from brothels in the past. Were there no street prostitutes in those days of yore? The point I'm trying to make is that we need to compare like with like, and I'm not sure if the above comparisons really are of that type.

Never mind. Levitt and Dubner discuss a study of today's street prostitutes and their lives and then skip happily over to interview one high-end prostitute who is making loads and loads of money! In fact, the more she charges, the more customers she gets, and the more she earns with less work! It's totally TEH career of the future for us wimminz. Note that we are not talking about street prostitution here, nope. We are talking about competing with the Trophy Wife markets:

About this, Allie is probably wrong. Although she views herself as similar to a street prostitute, she has less in common with that kind of woman than she does with a trophy wife. Allie is essentially a trophy wife who is rented by the hour. She isn't really selling sex, or at least not sex alone. She sells men the opportunity to trade in their existing wives for a younger, more sexually adventurous version — without the trouble and long-term expense of actually having to go through with it.

For an hour or two, she represents the ideal wife: beautiful, attentive, smart, laughing at your jokes and satisfying your lust. She is happy to see you every time you show up at her door. Your favourite music is already playing and your favourite drink is on ice. She will never ask you to take out the rubbish.

...

Street prostitutes like LaSheena might have the worst job in America. But for elite prostitutes like Allie, the circumstances are completely different: high wages, flexible hours and relatively little risk of violence or arrest. So the real puzzle isn't why someone like Allie becomes a prostitute, but rather why more women don't choose this career.

That's the puzzle. Levitt and Dubner don't even TRY to answer that puzzle. It's something about the mysterious women, refusing to supply sex for good money, when they should. They are probably too stupid to realize that they could do that instead of getting married as trophy wives. Which is just prostitution under another name.

Levitt and Dubner don't actually properly tell us why Allie's profits rise as she raises her prices. It must be that she is exerting market power, as if she had a local monopoly in sex-for-money. But it isn't really sex she appears to be selling as much as "trophy-wifeness": The proper way for a wife to act. Or that's what Levitt and Dubner hint at.

It's all pretty fascinating. Like picking up a rock and looking at the slimy critters wiggling all over each other. Because ultimately Levitt and Dubner are arguing that women sell sex and men buy it, even when we talk about marriage. That means that if you pay a woman enough, she will act as a proper trophy wife. Or she should act that way. Or something like that.

And high-end prostitution is completely vanilla. No customer ever wants to hurt the prostitute, no. They bring wine and gift cards! They are harmless married dentists or stockbrokers! They just want to enjoy a moment when women act like they should act at home, too.

Let's go back to that first excerpt, about men always having wanted more sex than they could get free. There's no actual evidence for that, but never mind. Let's set up something similar but in reverse:

Since time immemorial and all over the world, women have wanted more romance than they could get for free. So what inevitably emerges is a supply of men who, for the right price, are willing to satisfy this demand. But what is the right price?


But such a market has never existed, to my knowledge. Why would that be? Worth thinking about, this one. It also links to the whole attitude of Levitt and Dubner.

-----
The picture above was selected to draw attention to the way women's legs are used in the linked excerpt to the chapter on prostitution.

|

How To Get A 24-Hour Migraine With Frequent Vomiting 






Easy-peasy! First spend several hours on the Psychology Today site, where you find the misogynist Satoshi Kanazawa preaching us on the evils of feminism and how Barbie is an evolutionary construct! No-one there argues back to his ideas. He doesn't allow comments and there's no other blog written by someone critical of his ideas.

And no-one there appears to know (or care) that the study his recent book (Why Beatiful People Have More Daughters) is named for was completely faulty: We don't actually know why beautiful people have more daughters because most likely they do not.

You could stop at this point, naturally, if you weren't obsessive-compulsive or something. But that would have been too easy, so you slip-and-side onto a Men's Rights site, because of a quotation you find where someone says that Kanazawa has proven, completely and finally, how men MUST be the bosses of wimminz.

The Men's Rights sites vary a lot, from truly ghastly (kill-all-women) to pretty ghastly (menz-do-everything-better). This one (which I'm not going to link to) is interesting because it has a whole lot of articles which you can read to find the theoretical underpinnings of what they are to believe. Those articles, for instance, tell us that the gender gap in wages doesn't exist at all. In fact, women earn more than men for the same work! Eat that, you silly feminist economist.

As an aside, that's one of the major problems of the Internetization of all these debates. People now accept different studies as the troof, and hence the debate has become pretty much impossible. How could I debate those MRA guys when they already believe that a) women earn more than men, b) the problem with rape is mostly false accusations and c) feminists are in power in this country? If I give them studies which disprove those things they won't find them in their short list of Approved Sources. The end of the story.

But this particular site wasn't just about those common topics. I followed one long thread from the beginning to the end, because it consisted of lots of visitors who actually tried to talk with the local denizens.

The odd thing is that I started with much empathy for some of those denizens: They were clearly men who had been horribly hurt by something in their lives and who had chosen to generalize from that hurt to all women. Even some of the nasty comments seemed to be based on hurt. It seemed as if they believed that white heterosexual men truly were the oppressed in this country! At any moment a PC policewoman could walk in and take them to jail for rapes they didn't commit.

But as the discussion continued, something odd turned up: Yes, they argue that women are in power in the United States, and that is wrong. But the desirable state is not equality. Nope. It is men who should be in power, because Satoshi Kanazawa and Steven Pinker have proved that to be the only possible arrangement. In short: what these Men's Rights Activists thought men's rights consist of is the right to dominate women.

My empathy had disappeared into a puff of bad air by this time. Then the migraine and the vomiting.

|

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Food For Thought -- But You Shall Puke 



Broadsheet, the women's blog at Salon.com, reported on this New York Times article:

Somalia's hardline Islamist group al Shabaab has publicly whipped women for wearing bras they say violate Islam by constituting a deception, north Mogadishu residents said Friday.

The insurgent group, which seeks to impose a strict form of sharia Islamic law throughout Somalia, amputated a foot and a hand each from two young men accused of robbery earlier this month. They have also banned movies, musical ringtones, dancing at wedding ceremonies and playing or watching soccer. [ID:nL9050633]

Residents said gunmen had been rounding up any woman seen with a firm bust and then had them publicly whipped by masked men. The women were then told to remove their bras and shake their breasts.

All that is horrible. Then check out some comments to the Broadsheet post:

At Least Have The Common Decency

To give them poles to twirl around on.

---------

It Is Now Officially The Most Breastisis-Obsessed Week EVER On Broadsheet

What's up with the lack of linkage or pics, though?

I wanna see Somali ladies shaking their titties, too...

Maybe it's over here?

http://worldmusic.nationalgeographic.com/

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

Show Us YOUR Tits, Tracy!

Stop teasing us with stories about Somali ladies' sweet jubblies! We wanna see the Broadsheet bazookas!

Compassionate and empathetic these guys are not. Neither do they have anything useful to say, though it's of some interest that they are essentially engaging in sexual harassment.

I have recently spent some time on various science-y sites, reading posts by professors of anthropology and such. They get comments almost as bad. It's enough to WAF: Write As Feminist.

|

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Weekly Poetry Slam Posted by A Mc 

Post your poems on this thread, don't be shy.
|

News From The Wingnut Front 



I know someone who watches Fox News all day long, every day. She tells me stuff! For instance, the contraceptive pill is terrible because it disrupts evolution by making women not pick dominant men! And all studies show that only working women are unhappy and it's the fault of feminists!

Those of you who read this blog regularly know where these ideas come from. But they sure change so as to be unrecognizable before they are fed as "facts" at Fox. And then they are plugged back into the popular culture, and you will come across them one day. Funny how that works.

|

Friday, October 16, 2009

Gender & homelessness (by Suzie) 



I pretended to be homeless for three days and nights in June 1989. I knew this was not the same as being homeless. I question the ethics of it now, but as a reporter covering housing issues, I wanted an insider’s perspective.

Some people eyed me with concern because I was slender and salable as a prostitute. Poor and/or homeless people offered to share food. On the street, it helps to have strength and some reserve fat.

I had gone undercover with Joel, who managed a program for the homeless mentally ill. I wouldn't have gone out alone. Women who don’t already have a man often hook up with one on the streets to help protect them from other men. Many get swept into prostitution. After all, a single woman on the streets is synonymous with prostitution. Think “street walker” or “woman of the streets.”

I was no prize. I was dirty and I stunk. There was no shower, no toothbrush and no “sanitary products.” I happened to be on my period that week, and the best I could do was stuff toilet paper in my underwear. The first day, a man told us we weren’t going to find any work or shelter.

“Honey, the only way you’re going to make any money is on your ass.” He then put an arm with crusty sores around my shoulders and told Joel: “I’ll give you $20.” Although disgusted, we laughed off his suggestion, to avoid conflict. He then offered to sneak me into his flophouse. “I won’t molest you,” he promised. Yeah, right.

No one we encountered thought sex work was empowering. At a Salvation Army office, an older woman who worked as a maid assured me: “There’s nothing wrong with hard work.” She suggested I try a day-labor pool.

At a church shelter, Joel and I got a hearty meal after a long sermon. At bedtime, men and women were separated. Joel slept on a pew, while I claimed an old mattress on the floor. The bathroom in the women’s area had a sign: “Women Only! If you don’t know which you are, male or female, ask the staff.”

I spent the next two nights at a Salvation Army shelter. I had to obey various rules, and I had little privacy, but the food, hot showers, washer and dryer, clean clothes and clean sheets felt luxurious.

We were rousted out before dawn to work. At a labor pool, I got a job as an assistant to a maid at a pricey hotel. The maid reassured me that I could do this work; I didn't have to remain homeless.
--------------
Women are more likely to be poor, and yet, the great majority of people who live on urban streets, especially those who sleep outside, are men. To avoid the streets (or, more accurately, predatory men), many women stay in overcrowded or unsafe housing or with abusive families or mates.

I’ve written before about public spaces, asking: Which public? Some women, whether homeless or a professional on her lunch break, may feel uncomfortable in places where men hang out – and for good reason.

When people talk about helping the homeless, don’t forget women who live in bad conditions but are not visible to passers-by.
--------------
Next week, a friend will write about the connection between domestic violence and homelessness.
|

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

This is Noah, the puggle puppy, contemplating Clifford's tail. My Ginger walks with her tail in the air, like a lemur. If it's cold or rainy, she tucks it under, if it were a furry thong.

I've always wished that I had a prehensile tail, like a monkey.


|

Question for the weekend (by Suzie) 



The topic is underwear. I was curious if every girl and woman knew that they would end up with fewer stained underwear if they wore black ones during their period. (I'm not counting cultures in which women don't wear underwear or don't wear black ones.) The question arose because a friend had not received that wisdom.

When I searched the font of all knowledge, I saw she must be the only one because there were various disquisitions on "period underwear." The Frisky, for example, had a photo of a butt in red underwear (No! No! It's too hard to match colors.) and this comment:
Typically, girls wear sexy underwear at all times because, even if we know no one is going to see them, we just feel better about ourselves when we know we look pretty underneath.
My new questions: Is it possible for a woman to feel good about herself without wearing sexy underwear? Is the Frisky satire or a sign of the apocalypse?

Even scarier was Answers.com answering: "What does it mean if a girl wears black underwear?" The first response mentioned the utility during her period. Then there was this:
... when a woman wears black underwear, they planned that ahead, which means they wanted you to see it, wheter it be a bra or panties, they intended for you to see it, whether that means before intercourse, or just whenever. I think it's safe to say if a woman is wearing sexy underwear, and she is showing it to you, she already planned this out. I'm not saying if a woman has on black underwear it means you're going to get laid, but it's not too far fetched to think that that is a possibility. Mind you this is all from personal experience.
Does this make you want to wear large white underwear?
|

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Today's Funny 






This is Mr. Savage and a caller who thinks that Savage's rants should be valid material to use for a college paper.
---
For more funnies, go here. I guess I should attach a wingnut warning to these. The kind which despises us wimminfolk.

|

And Here We Go Again.. 






Yet another series by a guy writer on the topic of those unhappy wimmen. This time it's Russel Bishop telling women that what makes them unhappy is trying to compete with the boyz:

My theory as that over the past 40 years, as American society exited the "Father Knows Best" or "Leave It To Beaver" mentality of the 50's and 60's, we seem to have increasingly equated success and fulfillment with jobs, career advancement, position title, bank accounts, and other symbols of success. If you were one of those statistical women who took on job, career or economic goals as your "symbols" of success, you just might have wound up sacrificing what mattered most in hopes of greener pastures at the other end of job, career or economic goals.

What if you won the race to the top: a better job, increased paycheck, more "toys" than the boys? Did you bargain for all that comes with it? Did you anticipate the sacrifices you would have to make to get there? How are those trades looking now?

Pardon me while I bang my head against the garage door.

Just to a reminder, the initial study which started this diarrhea flowing found a small increase in the number of women reporting that they were not too happy, when compared to studies forty years ago or so. The study establishing this was unable to find any one group of women which would have caused this increase. IN PARTICULAR, STAY-AT-HOME WIVES WERE AS LIKELY TO REPORT INCREASED UNHAPPINESS AS WOMEN IN THE LABOR FORCE. Yes, that's worth shouting about, even though nobody on Huffington Post hears it.

So you begin with a finding that having a job is not the reason why women's unhappiness might have risen? Never mind! Let's pretend that it IS the reason! Then let's pretend that all the women with jobs have them only in order to die in the corner office! Nope, they are not working to earn money. They work to compete with the boyz, and what makes the boyz happy makes the wimmins unhappy. So the wimmins should return to the world of "Father Knows Best." Even though that was a television series, not real world.

This is so fucking inane (and yes, I know I shouldn't write that word). Don't read the comments thread if you want to keep your sanity. Though I award my louse medal for this comment:

I've read enough evolutionary psychology to know that nature's purpose for women is to bear children and raise them. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that means they must obey nature's command and deny their hearts. But, I do question whether wanting to compete with men in everything and making themselves miserable in the process is really their heart's speaking or the constant nagging of the feminists in society who people should have stopped listening to almost immediately after they opened their mouths in the 60's.

I know I'm shouting into a barrel and nobody will hear. It's much more fun and exciting to debate the question whether women should stay at home or not. Never mind that nobody is offering a wage for that or health insurance or retirement benefits! Never mind, either, that the happiness of one Mr. Russell Bishop seems to be inextricably intertwined with that premise or some similar one.

I do admit wondering why HuffPo puts up guys to write on the topic of women's happiness, by the way. Especially as these guys certainly have an axe to grind.
-----
You should also read this post of mine, while we are on the topic of what constitutes a failure of feminism. And Barbara Ehrenreich's take on the whole hullabaloo. Thanks to AndiF for that link.

|

Errr. Not Quite What I Had In Mind 



When it comes to wanting equal treatment of men and women in fashion. Check out this photograph on latest men's fashions and the associated text.

But suppose that fashion actually did start treating men as inanimate dolls, too. Would this ultimately work to make fashions more human-friendly? By making more people aware of the impossibility of walking or working or breathing in those clothes?

An interesting question. Alas, men lack the training to accept fashion rules.

|

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The Man Who Bit The Dog 



I have seen a great increase in those kind of news stories: the unusual, the extreme, the shocking!, probably because the traditional media is fighting for its survival and one way to get lots of eyeballs is by posting on scandalous and weird stuff all the time. But this is dangerous, because the more something is discussed in the news the more it starts looking like a representative case. The average or the norm, even! Then we might change our lives based on that belief.

The obvious example of the dangers of this approach is the way strangers waiting to abuse children are now feared all over the country, quite out of proportion to the actual risks, and this has much to do with twenty years of media focus on every single awful and disgusting and frightening case. Note that all of the known cases get media attention, but our brains replace that with the idea that what we see is just the tip of some incredible iceberg.

Likewise, if you want to bash a government program, you will draw our attention to any foolish examples that might be derived from that. Once those foolish attempts get enough publicity we start believing that all the parts of the program are like that. Even if the foolish examples are the only ones that could be found after much digging, and even if they don't exist at all.

This trick of picking the most extreme examples of something and then pretending that they are representative examples is a common one. I see that employed by anti-feminists all the time, for example.

|

Meanwhile, in Pakistan 



I watched the videos attached to this article a few days ago, and I always assumed that the mother of the schoolgirl they portrayed was dead. It turns out that she is not dead. If you have time, watch the videos first and only then read the story. Much food for thought there.

|

That Was Then... 



The New York Times front-paged these thoughts about Roman Polanski a few days ago:

At the end of "Manhattan," the celebrated movie romance from 1979, a teenager played by Mariel Hemingway delivers some good news to the 42-year-old television writer, portrayed by Woody Allen, with whom she has had a long-running sexual affair.

"Guess what, I turned 18 the other day," said Ms. Hemingway, in what was framed as a poignant encounter. "I'm legal, but I'm still a kid."

That was then.

Roman Polanski's arrest on Sept. 26 to face a decades-old charge of having sex with a 13-year-old girl stirred global furor over both Mr. Polanski's original misdeed and the way the authorities have handled it — along with some sharp reminders that, when it comes to adult sex with the under age, things have changed.

Manners, mores and law enforcement have become far less forgiving of sex crimes involving minors in the 31 years since Mr. Polanski was charged with both rape and sodomy involving drugs. He fled rather than face what was to have been a 48-day sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with a minor.

But if he is extradited from Switzerland, Mr. Polanski could face a more severe punishment than he did in the 1970s, as a vigorous victims' rights movement, a family-values revival and revelations of child abuse by clergy members have all helped change the moral and legal framework regarding sex with the young.

This is the beginning of an article on the Polanski case by Michael Cieply. It's a little bit startling, and if you didn't find it so, read it again. Cieply starts by giving us a scene from a Woody Allen movie, a love story between a very young girl and Woody Allen (of course). He then compares this with the rape-and-sodomy charges Polanski faced in the 1970s and sorta concludes that the two are basically the same thing! Rape and sodomy charges are just like "sex with the young!" Or at least they were that in the 1970s. Except that Polanski was charged with rape and sodomy 31 years ago, not yesterday, and rape of thirteen-year olds was not A-OK even in the 1970s.

|

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Good News Tuesday, Again 



Ellinor Ostrom became the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics! I'm doing a Snoopy dance in her honor, even though she sort of snuck into the field from political science.

She shares the prize with Oliver Williamson. What the two share is a focus on nonmarket solutions in economics:

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded on Monday to two American social scientists for their work in describing the numerous relationships within a company or among companies and individuals that shape market behavior.

The prize committee cited Elinor Ostrom, 76, at Indiana University, and Oliver E. Williamson, 77, at the University of California, Berkeley, for work done over long careers. Ms. Ostrom is the first woman to receive the economics prize in the 41-year history of the award. She is a political scientist, not an economist, and in honoring her, the judges seemed to suggest that economics should be thought of as an interdisciplinary field rather than a pure science governed by mathematics.

"This award is part of the merging of the social sciences," said Robert Shiller, a Yale University economist. "Economics has been too isolated and too stuck on the view that markets are efficient and self-regulating. It has derailed our thinking."

This award means a lot to young female economists who can now dream further. It made me all weepy, to be honest.

|

Book Learning 



Paul Krugman wrote about the importance of public education as one reason for the American economic success. The demise of that same education is beginning to bite:

If you had to explain America's economic success with one word, that word would be "education." In the 19th century, America led the way in universal basic education. Then, as other nations followed suit, the "high school revolution" of the early 20th century took us to a whole new level. And in the years after World War II, America established a commanding position in higher education.

But that was then. The rise of American education was, overwhelmingly, the rise of public education — and for the past 30 years our political scene has been dominated by the view that any and all government spending is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Education, as one of the largest components of public spending, has inevitably suffered.

Until now, the results of educational neglect have been gradual — a slow-motion erosion of America's relative position. But things are about to get much worse, as the economic crisis — its effects exacerbated by the penny-wise, pound-foolish behavior that passes for "fiscal responsibility" in Washington — deals a severe blow to education across the board.

I'm not so certain that education was the main engine of America's economic rise. The very large domestic markets had something to do with it, too, as did the vast natural resources of the country. But education certainly didn't hurt that cause.

The reason I titled this post "book learning" is that Americans do tend to have contempt towards academic learning in general. It's not regarded as necessary (not like college sports, say), and it's viewed as some sort of elitism: as if you rejected your social class by going to college. Or something like catching an infectious disease. The wingnuts don't want to educate their daughters or sons (and especially their daughters) because they might actually start thinking differently, and thinking differently is A Very Bad Thing.

This is weird. If education is so unimportant, how can it be so powerful and dangerous at the same time? Yet these two ideas seem to be the engine in many of the recent changes in education.

|

Blinders 



David Broder wrote recently about how horrible it is that one election campaign has stooped to talking about fatness:

Every time you think politics has hit a new low, it finds a way to go lower. I thought we had reached the nadir last month when Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted "You lie!" at President Obama while he was speaking to a joint session of Congress.

But then the New York Times caught me up on what has been happening in New Jersey. Campaigns there are rarely elevated affairs, but the current battle between Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine and Republican challenger Christopher Christie has sunk to new depths.

As the Times pointed out, a television ad for Corzine, "about as subtle as a playground taunt," shows Christie "stepping out of an SUV in extreme slow motion, his extra girth moving, just as slowly, in several different directions at once. In case viewers missed the point, a narrator snidely intones" that Christie, the former U.S. attorney for New Jersey, "threw his weight around" to avoid several traffic tickets.

...

This issue has no place in our politics.

I am still looking for my divine jaw somewhere on the floor. Not because what Broder writes wouldn't be relevant but because of the way he writes it. As if this focus on the looks of a politician are a brand new thing! Never attempted before, ever!

I guess one could call this male privilege, but I see it more as a nice set of blinders which you can put on before you go out, assuming you are an intrepid guy reporter. Those blinders cover up everything that was said about Hillary Clinton's thighs, legs or cleavage! They cover up the porn movies made with a Sarah Palin look-alike! I guess it is possible that no aspiring politician has ever made those slurs about a woman he was competing against, but his underlings certainly have.

Here Echidne goes again, writing about something trivial. Mmm. Have a piece of chocolate.

There's a deeper point here, of course, as there always is, and that is the way it's possible for some men to view the society as completely consisting of men. And, of course, oftheirwomen.

That double-sight explains why someone like Broder can truly NOT see how female politicians are routinely treated. It also explains something I found on a blog which discussed the old courtly love traditions, of young men expressing a forbidden love towards the wife of their liege lord, and how very dangerous this could be: to the young men. The wife of the liege lord was not an active participant in the story, and what the consequences might have been to her are irrelevant.

Or the way Pepys' "love escapades" were routinely viewed in the literature I read about them: As a sign of his irrepressible rogue nature, with a few wink-winks added to the treatment. Yet anyone who actually reads his diary finds that he pretty much forced servant maids and the wives of poorer men to have sex with him. Some of them may have been willing, of course, but none of them ultimately had the power to refuse him, and all this was very obvious to me on first reading. Perhaps because I would have been one of those servant maids, most likely, had I been born the same sex into the place and time of Pepys.

Perhaps all this bias is just a consequence of gender identification? I doubt that, because I can't really see myself ever writing about the politics or the culture or anything else as if men were almost nonexistent creatures. Though I certainly have my own set of blinders!

|

Monday, October 12, 2009

Go Read Melissa 



On Rape Culture.

|

The Sleeping Beauty 






On a bad day I believe that the fairy tale princess in the Sleeping Beauty story is the Ideal Woman of this culture:

She's seventeen, beautiful and asleep, only to be awakened by the prince who does all the actual work in the story by breaking through her hymen the thorns which defend the castle in a hundred-year slumber.

On a better day I realize that she can give me a blogging topic: The Ideal Traditional Woman Has No Agency!

The Sleeping Beauty doesn't choose the prince; she is chosen. Snow-White is also kissed (while a corpse herself) by a prince who then marries her. We are never told anything about how willing the princesses are to do this. The story of Cinderella isn't that much different, though she does want to go to the ball: The ultimate choice is not hers but belongs to the prince who picks whoever can fit the glass shoe.

The hero in traditional European fairy tales almost always gets the princess and half the realm as his reward, even when he didn't rescue her from the dragon. What the princess thinks of this all is unclear.

Yet these stories were told to all the children, including little girls. The message is obvious: If you are passive and long-suffering enough, good things will come to you! The Beast holding Beauty prisoner turns into a handsome prince, because Beauty obeyed her father. Things "happens to" the girls and women in fairy tales, with only a few exceptions. It is men and boys who MAKE things happen.

You can step outside the fairy tale world and still find the same norms. The Virgin Mary is the ultimate long-suffering, patient and passive woman. The eternal virgins promised to Muslim men in paradise don't seem to mind their lack of agency. Neither do all those wives and girlfriends in the he-man movie genre whose speaking roles consist of saying: "You need some rest, honey," while gazing at the hero with adoring eyes. Or the Quiverful wives who have relinquished their bodies to god and the starter key to those bodies to their husbands. A good woman has always been a modest woman, a woman who stays silent and long-suffering. A woman without many demands.

Some of this is probably a logical consequence of the way the Hero's Tale is told in most cultures. Such tales don't need uppity women walking into the scene, yelling and demanding attention, stomping their feet. It ruins the intended path of the Hero's Tale. But too many of the suffer-in-silence stories exist for this to be the whole explanation. It does look like women have been traditionally trained towards passivity. A certain kind of eternal sleep.

|

What Am I? 



A futile question I ask myself all the time. But today I'm asking it for a different reason: It's a disguise for talking about what feminism doesn't much talk about.

This quest began with Phila's post below, about how we can scientifically prove that human mate-selection is done by women (nope, you are wrong about all those historically arranged marriages and the custom of punishing women who have babies outside marriage and the more recent custom of men proposing to women and so on) and that women pick their baby daddies on the day when they ovulate (late applicants will be turned away at the door).

Also, the selection takes place in a laboratory where undergraduate women look at facial images of men on computers. Well, at least that's what the studies consist of, the ones which we are told explain mate selection preferences. Then the researchers decide that the faces some number of women pick when ovulating are CLEARLY the faces of dominant males who engage in male-on-male competition! Something to do with large jaws, I guess.

And then all this is written into a story about how women on the pill are wrecking human evolution because they are less likely to pick men with the faces the researchers think demonstrate male dominance.

It's a lot of fun to read these stories and earnest investigations into the mysterious female bodies. Or it would be if the resulting interpretations weren't ultimately aimed at keeping me and others like me from ever able to answer that "what am I?" question, or even ever getting to formulate the question.

Yet to ask the "what am I?" question is to me a fundamental human right and one we still allow men far more often than women. (That is a deep statement, by the way, and you might want to think about it in terms of popular culture, fairy tales, songs, movies, books, religions and laws and societal norms.)

What a long introduction that is! If I had an editor it wouldn't be there much longer. But I am going to keep it because it tells you how intense my feelings are, how strongly I believe in the importance of following the pseudo-scientific discussions and how bitter I am when I bump into those very same arguments at parties in six months' time.

All this matters for the girls born today, you know. It is they who will grow up within a culture which lets stuff like this find its place into the small-talk departments of cocktail parties, church picnics, kitchen tables and bars.

So I go to other feminist sites to see what they say about any of the myriad pseudo-scientific gender studies that I fret over. And I find next to nothing*, on most days. This worries me. As I have mentioned before, religion, pseudo-science and the legal system are the three traditional legs of the stool on which misogyny sits, and seeing so little written about one of those legs is disconcerting.

Then again I start questioning myself: Perhaps the warnings I write are not needed? Perhaps everyone is one move ahead in the game? And, after all, there are smart writers responding to this stuff; only not so often on blogs.

At the same time, I think that the relative lack of feminist response to topics such as the one Phila took on reflects a problem with the current feminist emphasis on one end of the oppression scale (for lack of better terms): the oppressed. The more we focus on those who suffer from oppressions of all kinds the less we see the new oppressive tools being developed. Because that development takes place elsewhere and because any new tools appear relatively harmless to begin with. Something to ridicule, say.

My apologies for the muddled thinking above. I'm trying out some ideas in this post and welcome your views.
----
*For one of the few exceptions, Clarissa wrote about this topic.

|

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Unnatural Selection (by Phila) 

An article revealingly titled "Unnatural Selection" explores the possibility that the use of oral contraceptives is changing women's (natural) preference for domineering men, and their ability to land a mate (of the correct type).
Ovulating women exhibit a preference for more masculine male features, are particularly attracted to men showing dominance and male-male competitiveness and prefer partners that are genetically dissimilar to themselves....

The authors also speculate that the use of oral contraceptives may influence a woman's ability to attract a mate by reducing attractiveness to men, thereby disrupting her ability to compete with normally cycling women for access to mate.
So women who are on the pill lack the ovulating women's "normal" desire for aggressively masculine men, and are less attractive to men per se, and fail to choose genetically dissimilar partners who are more likely to get them pregnant? Obviously, this path to reproductive freedom is an evolutionary dead end.
"The ultimate outstanding evolutionary question concerns whether the use of oral contraceptives when making mating decisions can have long-term consequences on the ability of couples to reproduce," suggests Dr. Lummaa.
One way to investigate this theory, it seems to me, would be to study whether fertility problems are more common among couples who previously relied on oral contraceptives. Since the myth that oral contraceptives cause infertility is pretty widespread, a fair amount of attention has been given to this issue. And as far I know, the results have been entirely negative. (Granted, couples who use the pill may delay pregnancy until an age when fertility has decreased...but again, I don't know of any evidence showing that these older couples are statistically more likely to have fertility problems than ones who never used the pill).

As always, I'm concerned about the normative tone that prevails when this sort of research is described in the press. And I'm skeptical that these alleged "preferences" have the power and ubiquity that tends to be assigned to them. And I'm troubled that these stories almost never report the actual statistical incidence of the expected response; they simply issue blanket statements about what "ovulating women" prefer, as though the women who failed to conform to expectations were so completely irrelevant that there's no need to know how many of them there were. And of course, I'm irritated at the lack of any acknowledgment that the definition of research topics, the research itself, the subjects' responses, the researchers' conclusions, and the media's reporting all take place not in some anti-ideological vacuum, but within a social context of male dominance, misogyny, and heteronormativity.

In this case, I'm also curious about how closely you can compare the supposed mate preferences of women who are not on the pill to those who are, especially if they're avoiding contraceptives for ethical or cultural reasons. If a woman doesn't use contraceptives because she was raised in a conservative household, is she more likely to report a preference for traditionally "masculine" (i.e., socially dominant) men? Beats me. But like every other factor that influences the incredibly complex social phenomenon of sexual behavior, it probably bears looking into.

Putting all that aside, the main thing that interests me about this groundbreaking research is how it ties in with the finding that ovulating women were more likely to vote for Obama. Will women who are taking oral contraceptives show the same preference in 2012, or will they be more interested in, say, a Palin/Jindal ticket? Hopefully someone's working on this important problem right now, because as the author of the Obama study notes:
"There are some women who aren't going to change their beliefs whether they're ovulating or not, but people don't pay enough attention to a woman's changing cycle and how it might affect decision making."
|

NSFM: Tom DeLay does the tango (by Suzie) 



NSFM = Not Safe for Meals. You may choke with laughter or anger or nausea.

|

Found: Some equity in healthcare, but not good news (by Liz) 

I tuned into CSPAN2 last week to watch the women senators who spoke out on the Senator floor for healthcare reform. They were led by Senator Barbara Mikulski and her rally cry: "We the women of the Senate have fought for equal pay and equal work…and now we are fighting for equal coverage. We want equal benefits for equal premiums." Her colleagues went on to speak out against gender inequities in the current healthcare system including these facts:

- In nine states domestic abuse is considered a pre-existing condition- for the victim, not the batterer
- Having had a C-section, even if it was medically mandated, may be considered a pre-existing condition
- In many states, insurance companies can charge women more for coverage than they charge men
- Not all states are required to cover maternity care
- And, per Senator Stabenow, that the intent to adopt may be considered a pre-existing condition

Not much new here. If you've been paying attention, you've heard most of this already. But I learned something else--I found some fairness in the current system. Senator Stabenow reported that not only is being pregnant cause for automatic rejection of coverage from some insurance companies, so is being an expectant father. Not quite the gender equity I was looking for.
|

Saturday, October 10, 2009

This and That (by Phila) 

Cervantes on healthcare reform:

We have a bias toward action, toward doing something; we're all about being bold and decisive and heroic. And we have a lot of faith in technology and anything that wears the guise of science. But the shocking truth is, much of medical intervention is not based in science at all, is not driven by evidence, but by physician's intuitions and customary ways of doing things. And, let's bite the bullet and make this painful admission: doctors are paid to do stuff, and the more radical their actions, the more they are paid....

Social justice begins long before we even think about universal health care. Sure, if we had it our society would be more just than it is now but we would still have huge inequalities in health and life expectancy because of all the other inequalities that would remain, for which medicine does not have the answer.

Lilian Nattel on positive psychology:

About ten years old, positive psychology studies how individuals and communities can thrive. A reaction against psychology as the study of mental illness, it aims to redress the imbalance in understanding human nature and what makes us happy and healthy and peaceful individually and socially.

This reminds me of a book I read years ago: The Psychology of the Female Body by Jane Ussher. What she noticed while looking at studes on pms was that subjects were asked only about negative symptoms around their periods. She repeated the study with a change: she asked as many questions about positive symptoms as negative ones. To my surprise, she found that as many women were energized as more tired before their periods, as many were happier as angrier, as many felt more enthusiastic as felt depressed.

The questions we ask open doors to possibilities.

Alison Bashford on quarantine:
Historically, quarantine laws were the main way in which people’s movement over national borders was regulated. Almost all of the immigration acts that proliferated around the globe in the nineteenth century (which we still live with, every time we hand over our passport) were about quarantine regulations. Every immigration restriction act across the world, even now, always has a “loathsome disease” clause in it.
Dave Neiwart on the gun-show loophole:
Over the past year, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been sending out private investigators to gun shows around the country, focusing on locales where NYPD and other local law enforcement are seeing guns arriving from. And what they showed was incredibly revealing.

It shows the dirty little secret that everyone who attends gun shows with any kind of discerning eye can tell you: There are a lot of illegitimate transactions taking place at them -- and particularly a lot of sales of guns to people who could never pass a background check.
NTodd on Obama's Nobel prize:
[L]et's not lose sight of something in all the arguments about the Nobel: it's up to us to create the space for Obama to earn this.

We can do it by creating justice at home in the form of meaningful healthcare reform, marriage equality, and reduced consumerism. We can do it by supporting HR2404, calling for an exit strategy in Afghanistan, and HR3699, denying funds for an escalation. We can do it by accepting our personal responsibility as citizens and being engaged with our government.

The 2008 election wasn't just about Obama, about putting a man in office who would single-handedly repair things after 8 disastrous years. The Nobel Peace Prize is no different. So hear the calls to action and get to work.

|

Weekly Poetry Slam Tread 

( Amc )

In memory of Mercedes Sosa, who made poetry so much more than words in a song or on a page.
|

Friday, October 09, 2009

Friday critter blogging (by Suzie) 

Here is Cohen in a Hawaiian shirt, playing with Noah, a puggle, and his housemate Alli, of indeterminate ancestry. That's Clifford's tail in the righthand corner.

Cohen is a mix of Siberian husky and German shepherd. He lives with his brother Kota (short for Dakota). I do not know why Cohen was wearing a shirt or whether he keeps kosher.
|

Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize (by Suzie) 



I'm glad the Norwegian Nobel Committee uses this award to foster peace. After all, anyone who wins it should feel a great need to live up to it. An AP story reports:
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama's name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
A list of previous winners includes people who have spent their lives working for peace and justice, as well as various political leaders. Since 1901, five women have shared the prize, and six have won it solo, including Shirin Ebadi, who was listed as a man. (Does the media have any copy editors anymore?) I guess so few women win because we start so many wars, we implement so many unjust policies, and we rarely volunteer to help others.

The AP story quotes the Nobel committee on Obama:
His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.
This does not bode well for women because men now make up the majority. Yes, men outnumber women, due to global discrimination against girls and women. Let's hope we get some leaders willing to challenge sexist attitudes, such as Hillary Clinton in Beijing. Although Obama appointed her Secretary of State, some people give him all the credit for international relations, while she gets a pat on the back for "having no trouble adapting to being a team player subordinate to Obama," as Wikipedia notes. Although Obama had been in the White House less than two weeks when he was nominated for the Nobel, Clinton's eight years in the White House doesn't count because she was only a wife who served tea.

For the Nobel, Obama beat out two women considered front-runners: Colombian Sen. Piedad Cordoba and Afghan physician and human rights activist Sima Samar. Please read their stories if you aren't familiar with them.

I wonder if the choice of Obama was related to what Echidne wrote earlier. A few more women have won Nobel prizes this year than in the past. Maybe committee members thought giving the peace prize to a woman would just be too much.
|

Hunting my rapist, Part 2 (by Suzie) 



“What are you going to do after you track him down?” asked a friend in journalism who helped with the hunt. I emailed back: “I'm not sure. I joke that I'm like a dog chasing a garbage truck.”

I talked about the rape in last Friday’s post. Today, I want to give a snapshot of the search. I don’t recommend such a search for everyone. Not only can it depress you further, but it also may be dangerous if a rapist knows you’re tracking him.

Most people I contacted were helpful, and their caring helped erase much of my self-blame. One of his former colleagues emailed me:
This is a terrible event and I would love to find and
 prosecute
 the guy.
I learned from a rape crisis line that the statute of limitations had run out. I felt foolish calling after so many years, but a counselor assured me that I wasn’t the only woman who had tried for years not to think about her rape.

Although I had quoted X in a newspaper article, I later put his name in some locked compartment of my mind. When I found the old article and read his name, I had to fight feelings of panic. But I didn't stop.

Online white pages yielded his age, a wife’s name, his address and his telephone number. I called a couple of times, and left the most neutral of messages. He didn’t call back. What would he have said: He didn’t remember me? He thought I was either nutty or slutty? It wasn’t like he was going to beg my forgiveness.

An Intelius report gave his past addresses and his date of birth. Knowing where he had lived – on a major street I knew well – explained why I had been able to drive home drunk and/or drugged.

The details of his current house came from his county’s appraisal district. Because his wife’s name wasn’t on the deed, I searched civil court records and found she had died. From another county, I got the divorce records for a previous marriage. These records told me that he had no children.

I put in a public-records request at his old job, searched the archives of the local newspaper and the university where he had gotten his degrees, and finally got a photo of him from the state licensing board. The photo was taken at age 47, the same age I was when I decided to investigate him. He no longer appeared handsome – or professional. He held no power over me.

An investigator at the licensing board told me it was too late to file a complaint. By law, however, I was entitled to X's education information and his current place of employment, which was also a public agency. No complaints had ever been filed against him, according to the agency and the board.

His employer gave me his job title, contact information, resume and salary, which was surprisingly low. His degrees on his resume didn’t match the ones reported to the licensing board. I filed a complaint with the licensing board, and after many months, he was required to explain the discrepancy. The board didn’t discipline him, but they did tell him to give the correct credentials in the future.

Some readers may have hoped for a grand finale, in which I got justice. Sorry. Some may ask, as many of my friends did: “Why did you waste so much time and energy on this guy?” In my career, I often checked people’s backgrounds, and I enjoyed solving mysteries. In this case, as I pored over the mundane facts of his life, he became demystified.

I stuffed all my notes and documents in a folder marked “rapist,” and I filed it away.
------------------
On a rape-related topic: The House passed the bill that would add gender, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity to federal hate-crime legislation. The NYT coverage is typical in that it focuses on hate crimes against gays, with no discussion of gender. Apparently, male hatred of women never leads to crime. An AP story mentions statistics on hate crimes, without pointing out that these statistics don't include crimes motivated by gender. I've written about this before.
|

Question for the weekend (by Suzie) 



If we're going to hell in a handbag, what kind of handbag is it? I'm thinking a fake Louis Vuitton.
|

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Good News Thursday 



The 2009 Nobel Prize in Literature went to Herta Müller:

An ethnic German born in Romania, writer Herta Müller has won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Literature. The 56-year-old, who emigrated to Germany in 1987, has made the trials of living under Nicolae Ceaus,escu's dictatorship a focus of her work.

In its citation, the Nobel committee wrote that Müller, "with the concentration of poetry and the frankness of prose, depicts the landscape of the dispossessed."

Müller, a novelist and short-story writer, was considered by some to be among the top authors in the running for the award, although Amos Oz of Israel was the odds-on favorite of British wagering firm Ladbroke's.

She is the fourteenth woman to have won the literature prize. Her award means that this year's prizes have much less of a male dominance than has usually been the case, though they are most unlikely to reflect the actual population percentages of men and women.

I had an odd reaction to this piece of news and it's not one I'm proud about: My happiness in more women being recognized for their talent and work was somewhat marred by this niggling fear I felt. Or perhaps not fear but discomfort.

When I dug into it a little I realized that I was worried how anti-feminists would interpret such a "large" number of women suddenly winning Nobel prizes. A few you can sneak in without them coming out with lots of articles about how horrible feminists are and how undeserved any awards going to women really are, but this many in one year?

I'm not making this confession just because I hate having to read misogynistic screeds in general (and yet feel that I should read it in order to respond to it), but because it tells me something deeper about the struggle we are in and about my fears of the frequent backlashes against any progress women make. But we can't smuggle equality in during the dark hours of the night, after all.

|

A New Sex Offender Site 



Oklahoma has a new law which requires all abortions to be listed on a public website:

The law (which you can look at here — it's HR 1595) mandates that a 34-item questionnaire be filled out by abortion providers for each procedure. The questionnaire doesn't include the woman's name or "any information specifically identifying the patient," but it does ask for age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies, and the county in which the abortion was performed, information which opponents of the bill argue would be enough to identify a woman in a small town. The questionnaire also asks about the mother's reason for the abortion, her method of payment, and even what type of insurance she has, as well as whether the fetus received anaesthetic and whether there was "an infant born alive as a result of the abortion."

The required information astonishingly contains nothing about the man who caused the pregnancy, but is probably sufficient for finding the identity of any woman in a smallish town. And that is its real purpose. That, and the idea of making abortions more and more cumbersome for the physicians to perform.

As Lynn Harris writes on Broadsheet:

It isn't unique for a state to post health data on its Web site. However, Oklahoma's requirements are by far the most extensive as such. The law's supporters claim they want this information to be made public so it can be used for "academic research," but according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, its collection method makes it useless for that purpose. (If a woman sees more than one doctor concerning her abortion -- primary care and abortion provider, say -- the data, collected each visit, will appear to represent more than one patient.)

The website really is about shaming the sluts. But it could also be used for making threats at women, including those with mistaken identities. Let's hope that the legal challenge to HR 1595 succeeds.

|

The United States Of Health 



Comparing various measures of health across the American states can be informative. It can also be tricky, because such comparisons don't tell us why people in Vermont are so much healthier than those in Mississippi, say; just that they are.

Still, here are the most recent rankings from one study which has applied various health measures to the states. The healthiest states in 2007 were these:

1. Vermont
2. Hawaii
3. Iowa
4. Minnesota
5. Maine
New Hampshire (tie)

And the least healthy states in 2007 were these:

47. Nevada
48. Arkansas
49. Louisiana
50. Oklahoma
51. Mississippi

The article I link to notes that the least healthy states in general have many more uninsured individuals than the healthiest states, and that is true. They probably also have less access to health care facilities in the more concrete sense. But attributing all the health differences to differences in health care utilization is probably a big mistake, because the determinants of good health are complex and depend not only on health care use but also on general life-styles, incomes, education, pollution levels, crime and so on.

Take incomes, for example. Higher incomes allow people to have better nutrition, safer homes and health care. Higher incomes are also usually earned in ways which are less risky for the bodies in terms of accidents and occupational illnesses. It probably doesn't surprise you then that a ranking of states by medium income in the early 2000s looks almost exactly like that health ranking.

None of this means that the low-ranking states wouldn't be greatly helped by access to better health insurance. That's why it's so very odd that those are the very states which send the most backward politicians to Washington D.C..

|

Such Fun With Religion 



PZ Myers writes about a new project of the infamous Conservapedia (the place where you can get your ultra-conservative worldview reinforced every day, instead of going to Wikipedia where you are turned into a little Maoist). This new project is -- wait for this -- rewriting the Bible to better match with today's wingnuttery! Here's the plan:

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

I bolded the funniest bit. I can imagine a rewriting where Jesus throws back a few beers, carves another Ayn Rand picture on his biceps and goes out to kill lots of liberals while the all-male Christian followers cheer and fart and thump each other on the backs.

Not that any of that is needed for canceling emasculation, naturally. All that requires is to put women in their proper place.

I think the Conservapedia people should know that the Bible has already been rewritten for the needs of a particular political group: cats. An example from Genesis 1: the Bible in lolcat:

Boreded Ceiling Cat makinkgz Urf n stuffs

1 Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

2 Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

3 At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.4 An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin.5 An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

6 An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling.7 An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.
|

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

For Jamie Leigh Jones 



I have written of her case in the past, but here's a short summary with the reason for this post:

Today, the amendment offered by U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to stop funding defense contractors who deny assault victims their day in court passed the United States Senate by a vote of 68 - 30

Last Thursday, Sen. Franken introduced an amendment (S.2588) to the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill that would restrict funding to defense contractors who commit employees to mandatory binding arbitration in the case of sexual assault. The legislation, endorsed by 61 women's, labor and public interest groups, was inspired by the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, who watched the vote from the Senate gallery today.

Jones was a 19-yr-old employee of defense contractor KBR (formerly a Halliburton subsidiary) stationed in Iraq who was gang raped by her co-workers and imprisoned in a shipping container when she tried to report the crime. Her father and U.S. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.), worked together to secure her safe return to the United States, but once she was home, she learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court, instead forcing her into an "arbitration" process that would be run by KBR itself. Just today, Halliburton filed a petition for a rehearing en banc in the 5th Circuit Court, which means that Jamie's fight is far from over.

Good for Senator Franken! And good for us. No military contractor should be outside of the laws of all countries.



The vote distribution in the Senate is fascinating. The NAYS appear to consist of only Republican men. Those are the people who think that Jamie Leigh Jones SHOULDN'T be allowed to have her day in court but that the people who put her into a packing crate to stop her from reporting the crime are the ones who should decide on the credibility of her case. Funny how that goes, eh?

This offers one great example why having more Democrats in the Congress does matter for women's rights. Though Republican women might do, too.
----
Links to the current story from Eschaton. For more of my posts on this topic, check here, here and here.
|

Wednesday Good News 



Ada Yonath of Israel is one of the three winners of this year's Nobel Prize for Chemistry. She's the fourth woman to have won the prize. The last one was in 1964.

For why this is good news for women, check out my post below on the winners of this year's Medicine Prize.

|

Gender Politics! Grumble, grumble. 



I watched a video interview of Leonard Cohen's opinions the other night. I searched it out on purpose, because there are hints in his lyrics that not all is OK with Leonard and Women. Women must be spelled with a capital W, because we are a mythical beast for Leonard, one he can adore or despise, put up on a pedestal and turn into something that only exists in the context of his love. (I still like many of his songs and want to stress that he's most likely a lot less objectifying than many famous male singers of the 1970s era.)

In the middle of the long interview Cohen talks about the difficulty of writing lyrics in a time which is all about gender politics and other kinds of politics and some extreme form of political correctness. He skates glibly around whatever he actually intends to say, as any good marketer would, but I suspect that he does not care for feminism.

All this set me thinking why other times would not have been about gender politics. Is it gender politics ONLY when women fight back, so to say? Read the Bible and you find gender politics, read the Koran and you find the same. Read old law books and you find them again. They have always been practiced, of course, and part of the rules of those politics traditionally has been NOT TO NOTICE THEM.

That's pretty important, I think. It's still true that the usual way to move across gender-based rules in a society is not to really question them, not to really notice them. That may be why the noticer and the questioner get bashed. Then it's those people who are seen as practicing gender politics.
----
My apologies for not noting down when the relevant bit comes on the video. I want to stress again that I like Cohen's art and I'm not singling him out in any particular way, just using the interview to point out how we frame matters in the culture.

|

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Tonight, on David Letterman... 



Suzie has already written about the case, but the basic message bears repeating: Bosses harvesting their subordinates for sex is almost always a bad idea.

What happens if the boss proposes sex and the underling refuses? Will the underling be later punished for that refusal in the form of fewer raises or promotions or even a speedier firing? And what will an underling thinking about all this do when such a question is popped to her (or even to him)?

It's that dratted power-over stuff again. I understand that not all cases are like that. I also understand that people can fall in love or in lust all across those rungs in power ladders. But there it is, the basic reason why Letterman should have taken the trouble to go out to singles bars or something (when he was still single, that is). And no, this is not all about sexual morals in some old-fashioned sense of the term.

|

Trivial Question Of The Day 



How many have found this site blocked as pron? (Must write vewy cawefully...) I've now been told about my new-found status by two people. (For this honor, I'd like to thank Ares who is an asshat,...)

|

The Scorched Earth Party? 



That would be the U.S. Republican Party, according to two articles I recently read. Paul Krugman, from whom I stole the title of this post, writes about the transmogrified Republican Party in his recent column:

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else's right to govern.

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let's not even talk about the impeachment saga.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

Earlier, Neal Gabler wrote something similar when discussing right-wing political beliefs as a religion:

The tea-baggers who hate President Obama with a fervor that is beyond politics; the fear-mongers who warn that Obama is another Hitler or Stalin; the wannabe storm troopers who brandish their guns and warn darkly of the president's demise; the cable and talk-radio blowhards who make a living out of demonizing Obama and tarring liberals as America-haters -- these people are not just exercising their rights within the political system. They honestly believe that the political system -- a system that elected Obama -- is broken and only can be fixed by substituting their certainty for the uncertainties of American politics.

As we are sadly discovering, this minority cannot be headed off, which is most likely why conservatism transmogrified from politics to a religion in the first place. Conservatives who sincerely believed that theirs is the only true and right path have come to realize that political tolerance is no match for religious vehemence.

My mind linked the two theses together, to come up with this:

The Republican base prefers their own rule to a destroyed country which they in turn prefer to the rule of the Democrats.

There are certainly Democrats who have corresponding (reverse) preferences, but those are never the Democrats in power. That group is sorta jello-like and wobbly, so as not to come across as bipartisan. (Imagine a fight of sharks against blobs of jello...)

This may not make much sense, but I'm trying to see how Krugman's and Gabler's arguments go with the oft-heard argument that "the left" should not start behaving like the right, should not become intolerant just to fight back. But what IS the tolerance of intolerance? Karl Popper, to the pink courtesy phone, please.

I do believe that the articles I have quoted above are right when they state that the Republican Party has not just drifted to the right but leapt there with all their might (while throwing the money bags over, first, of course). That's the way they stopped being a permanent minority: By enlisting populist policies of the lowest common denomination (fear and hate the Others!) and by energizing the fundamentalists. Those are the tigers they now ride. Seems like they are stuck up there, for the time being, because the tigers are hung-g-ry.

These developments are not completely inexplicable. Neither is the Democratic Party free of blame in all this. But I still think that the muddy middle is not large enough, interested enough or informed enough to make a real difference in these politics of division.

|

Monday, October 05, 2009

How I'd Like To Live 



Like this, except with less stuff.

It's not going to happen. Like all junctions in life, once you took the turn marked "Sally Army Furniture: Excellent Quality Available Only in Depression Brown" you are kinda stuck and will not be able to throw everything out and start again. Also, where would my spiders live if I let all that light in?

But it's always fun to dream about a different life.

|

Good News Monday 



The three winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine include two women:

Three Americans won the Nobel prize in medicine on Monday for discovering how chromosomes protect themselves as cells divide, work that has inspired experimental cancer therapies and may offer insights into aging.

The research by Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider and Jack W. Szostak revealed the workings of chromosome features called telomeres, which play an important role in the aging of cells.

It's the first time two women have shared in a single Nobel science prize. Over the years, a total of 10 women have won the prize in medicine.

My congratulations to all three winners. And a big cheer for the two women among them, because it does matter for all women. Prejudices and perceptions about women as a group are made less harmful by news such as these. It's important to understand that, and I have failed to explain it adequately in my posts. I'm not writing about uppity women and such just because I happen to be a goddess. The toolbox of anti-feminists consists of the same old rusted swords, and one of these is all about the presumed intellectual inferiority of women. It's presumed, by the way, however many times one refutes the argument, but actual examples do help to quiet the murmurs a little.

It's very sad that Joan Robinson died before having a chance to receive the Nobel Economics Prize, by the way. But then of course she couldn't get a full professorship until she was well in her forties. So the world HAS changed.

|

And What Did She Think Would Happen? 



That's what I wanted to know after reading this excerpt from an interview with Sandra Day O'Connor:

Retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor says she regrets that some of her decisions "are being dismantled" by the current Supreme Court.

O'Connor, who generally has avoided questions on the substance of the court under Chief Justice John Roberts, made the observation during a wide-ranging and unusually candid panel discussion over the weekend.

Asked how she felt about the fact that the current court had undone some of her rulings, the nation's first woman justice responded, "What would you feel? I'd be a little bit disappointed. If you think you've been helpful, and then it's dismantled, you think, 'Oh, dear.' But life goes on. It's not always positive."

O'Connor, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, was a moderate conservative who often brokered compromises among justices and across ideological lines.

Since she retired in 2006, the court has become more conservative and retreated from some rulings in which she crafted consensus, including on abortion rights, campaign finance and government race-based policies.

After all, Justice O'Connor IS part of the reason why we have an Attila-The-Hun Supreme Court right now. With proper apologies to Attila, of course, who might not have been as conservative as Scalia and his clones are.

|

Today's Proverb Worth Translating 



Like rowing a water-logged boat against the current.

That's a description of having to deal with someone who is all glum and grumpy and down in the dumps. Such as me on my bad-fangs days.

|

Sunday, October 04, 2009

Lecherous Letterman (by Suzie) 



This column talks about CBS talk-show host David Letterman, the alleged victim of an extortion attempt. (I stuck in "alleged victim" because that's the descriptor often used for women in sex crimes.)
This scandal threatens to make painful personal incidents public in a major way for a celebrity who has tried hard to keep his private life private.
But a famous boss having sex with subordinates isn't a private, none-of-our-business affair. It raises questions about whether women felt pressure to have sex with him to keep, or advance in, their career. The NYT reports:
Several longtime associates of Mr. Letterman said he has a long history of pursuing relationships with employees, dating to his first days on television on NBC in the early 1980s. At that time he was known to frequently date interns and other young women connected to his show, one associate said.
|

Weekly Poetry Slam Thread posted by Anthony McCarthy 

Post your fresh poems on topical or other subjects, your encouragement or disagreement with what gets posted on the comments.

Feel free to start us off, I’ll post my first one later today.
|

Saturday, October 03, 2009

Losers (by Phila) 

In response to the survey that Echidne discussed a few days ago, Mona Charen says it's not surprising that stay at home moms tend to have lower incomes and fewer opportunities:
We knew that women with lower levels of education and skills make the decision to raise their own children rather than seek a low-paying job that would barely cover the cost of childcare. That's not news, and it's not stupid either.
These women aren't "stupid" for staying at home once they realize that they can't break even by working full-time, let alone get ahead? Good to know. Hooray for the land of opportunity.

As if that weren't diabolical enough, Charen cites survey results that suggest many working mothers would like to spend more time with their children, but can't afford to, as evidence that women's throbbing biological urges are trumping the false consciousness of feminism:
Only 28 percent of full-time working mothers rated their parenting as a 9 or 10 on a 1-10 scale, compared with 41 percent of part-time workers, and 43 percent of at-home moms. A strong majority of working mothers (60 percent) say they would prefer part-time work, but only 24 percent achieve this....

Is it so threatening to acknowledge that when women have small children at home, they are less likely to want an 80-hour-a-week job?
It's not threatening at all; it's logical. What's threatening is the idea that this says something about the essential nature of women, as opposed to people who have to work themselves half to death in order to get by.

I love the part about asking overworked mothers to rate their parenting...it's a bit like breaking people's ankles, and then asking them to rate their ability to dance the Charleston. It'd be interesting to see how stringently fathers who work full-time assess their own abilities; my guess is that they might not be quite so hard on themselves. (As always, what's ignored in this argument is the extent to which fathers are at liberty to "opt out" of basic household responsibilities women's work.)

Tellingly, Charen objects to focusing on the working poor because it suggests that "only losers stay home with the little ones." Since these "losers" have no real choice in the matter, their so-called decisions can't really be presented as opting out. Therefore, to understand what the statistics are really saying, we need to ignore these outliers, and refocus our attention on the wealthier, more educated women whose choices actually matter.

The reason they matter is not just that they have money, though that certainly helps. In wingnut-speak, "educated" tends to mean "indoctrinated with unnatural ideas like feminism." If your goal is to detect the rejection of cartoon "feminist" values among uppity career women, it doesn't make much sense to look for it among the disadvantaged.

The best part is, the fact that some women can afford to stay home magically becomes an argument against childcare programs that might enable "losers" to acquire more education or additional skills, and possibly even escape poverty.
Perhaps the true source of anxiety about so-called "opt out" moms is that they tend to undermine a key liberal shibboleth; that the state must provide "quality" childcare in order to do justice to women. If even well-educated, high-earning moms who can afford the best daycare choose to stay at home instead, it rattles.
Sure. If some high-earning moms choose to stay home, even though they can afford the best available childcare, why on earth would anyone want to provide affordable childcare to women who are working 80 hours a week? Let alone to losers who are below the poverty line? If our best and brightest have no need for childcare, what possible use could it be to their social inferiors? Having chosen the "traditional" option from an untraditionally wide range of possibilities, their lives instantly become an object lesson to the underclasses: biology is destiny, and you can't "do justice to women" by expanding their access to childcare, or paying them a living wage, any more than you can do justice to goldfish by housing them in a birdcage.
|

Friday, October 02, 2009

Hunting my rapist, Part 1 (by Suzie) 



I was raped 29 years ago, and I got the most comfort from hunting the guy down. I’ve been thinking about that this week, as I read quotes criticizing the pursuit of Roman Polanski. When I read that his victim wanted charges dropped, I thought about how time influenced my own attitude in the opposite direction.

At 21, I didn’t understand that what happened to me was rape. It was 1980, and “date rape” would be coined later that year, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, although the phrase would take a while to catch on.

He was 32, a handsome professional in the mental-health field. How could I have gotten so drunk on a couple of drinks that he had to carry me into his bedroom? I had cried so hard that my body shook; I cried so hard that he finally stopped without coming. What a baby I had been!

I told few people what happened. Apparently, I did write a former college roommate because I still have her response: “That psychologist gives me the creeps! Can’t he be disboarded or something. What a jerkass, taking such advantages!” Her reaction was common at the time: There were creeps and jerks who took advantage of women. But few used the word “rape” if there was no physical force.

I never thought of going to the police. Even now, very few men get convicted of the rape of an acquaintance, especially when there are no injuries. It’s not surprising that prosecutors dropped charges of forcible rape and sodomy, and let Polanski plead guilty to statutory rape in 1978. I doubt he would have been prosecuted if his victim had been 18. After all, if a psychiatrist who examined Polanski could blame a 13-year-old for being provocative, what chance would a woman have in similar circumstances?

Years passed, and I put my “incident” – as the media might call it – out of my mind. I wrote about the issue of date rape, and I felt sad for friends who didn’t consider their rapes to be real rapes for one reason or another.

Eventually, I began to examine my attitude toward my own rape. I had interviewed the man when I was a newspaper intern, and he worked in a hospital psychiatric unit. He asked me out on a date and suggested we meet first at his apartment, where he offered me drinks. If I drink too much, I feel sick to my stomach – not like that night, where I felt good at first, and then distant. Much later, I would experience that feeling again before surgery.

My rapist would have had access to drugs. But what if he didn’t drug me? What if I said yes? I can’t remember what I did or didn’t say. Then the avenging angel on my shoulder reminds me that his unit dealt with people who were impaired by alcohol or drugs, as well as those who were mentally ill. Surely, he would have recognized when a woman was impaired. Surely, he had been trained in the concept of informed consent. If he meant well, why didn’t he stop as soon as I started to cry? When I was still clearly intoxicated, why did he put me in my car and let me drive home to another city? Why did he not call to make sure I got home safely or to see if I was OK?

Because he was a rapist.

I can only imagine what Polanski’s victim thought all these years, as people questioned her honesty. In 2006, when a therapist suggested I come to terms with the rape, I did what any good (former) journalist would do. I decided to investigate.

Next Friday: Let the hunt begin!

ETA: Some people think I'm defending Polanski. I'm not defending him or any rapists. Nor am I under the delusion that the attitudes of the 1970s have disappeared. For those interested in what I've written previously about Polanski, go here and here, and wait for the pages to load.
|

Friday bird blogging (by Suzie) 

Sometimes I wish I could fly away.





(This is a great blue heron, by my friend Peter.)
|

Thursday, October 01, 2009

Grow A Pair 



I heard someone urging someone else to do just that, and that made me wonder what I should grow if I ever were similarly urged. A pair of horns? Bigger divine breasts? A pair of auxiliary eyes in the back of my head? Long corner teeth? Legs instead of a snake tail?

That saying has to do with testicles, of course, and the assumption that testicles equal courage and bravery. Some people use ovaries the same way, such as "that takes ovaries!" or talk about brass ovaries when a woman comes across as daring. But those sayings are slow to change, alas.

Speaking of acts of courage, bravery and possibly foolhardiness, you may have followed the fuss over Representative Alan Grayson's comments on the Republican health care plan. If not, here's a quick catch-up course:


The initial move:





Grayson apologizes (not):





Grayson on CNN:





Hmm. I wonder if he would care to have my children? They're easy as they come out in egg form.

More generally, of course, I'm not sure that rudeness ultimately works. But the Republicans were the ones who suggested the Democratic proposal included death panels and such.

|

On Opting Out, Again... 



The opt-out revolution is what the New York Times invented some years ago, or so I recall. The idea is that highly educated women with wealthy partners opt out of careers in order to stay at home with their children. Note that we are not talking about poor women, or women who have to work to feed those children, or about Any. Kind. Of. Men.. Only about uppity women who have decided no longer to be so uppity.

Here's why this particular trend-making matters to feminism. Let me provide you with the extreme version of what a real opt-out revolution by educated women would mean, one which would truly reverse the trend so far:

If that revolution applied, colleges and universities might ultimately reinstall gender quotas in the sense of a maximum number of women allowed in law schools, medical schools and veterinary schools. After all, those are occupational degrees, and degrees which are today subsidized by the general society in various ways. If women are less likely to ever use their degrees, would they be allowed to be the majority of the students? What about all those poor men they exclude from the education which the women will never even use?

And how many middle-income parents would really consider re-mortgaging their houses just to pay for their daughter's Mrs. degrees? This is an argument that was not at all rare in the past. Indeed, I know a woman in her forties whose parents told her that they would not pay for her college degree as she'd just get married. The money would be wasted, yanno.

Likewise, once potentially powerful women were no longer interested in paid child-care and such, women who really, really need subsidized and good childcare will have fewer advocates, and all those powerful decision-making positions in the society would have far fewer qualified female applicants.

We'd probably also get back all those housewife jokes.


Those are the reasons why the invented trend is about the wealthiest of women, by the way, and not about mothers in general. It is the most educated and wealthiest who, after all, are closest to the top rungs of the societal ladders. If they can be kept away from the top ladder, so can all women and all women's issues. Besides, "opting out" is an incredibly clever way to make childcare once again something that only women do and something that really should be done by a woman alone at home for her own children. Since many women can't afford that option, they can then hate on the women who can and we can have mommy wars and the rest of the society can just chug along without worrying about any of that female crap.

So much for explaining the wider framework of all these weirdly breathless trendlets that the New York Times likes to stuff down our female throats. The widest framework of all is of course the one which assumes that it's up to mothers to take care of their children and of course they have a choice in how they do it but every choice is also wrong.

But they really should have more children and that shouldn't cost the society any money and they really should be at home taking care of those children. On the other hand, that we have so few Nobel Prize winning women is because women are more interested in their children and their families and that's really very admirable but don't come to us complaining about where all the woman award-winners are. If women make the choice of staying at home, they have only themselves to blame for not making the big bucks or the great inventions!

So I'm ranting here. It does a goddess good sometimes. I'm ranting, because we refuse to see that bringing up children is a time-consuming and necessary task, and at the same time we also demand that this nonexistent task (!) be done silently, quietly and without much money by mothers, and they are the ones to bear almost all the costs of this. If these mothers then point out that they can't be in two places at the same time we ask them to make a Sophie's Choice and to chuck out one part of themselves altogether. With very little empathy for those making that choice because they are rich enough to afford it.

Anyway. Here's the impetus for this rant:

A first census snapshot of married women who stay home to raise their children shows that the popular obsession with high-achieving professional mothers sidelining careers for family life is largely beside the point.

Instead, census statistics released Thursday show that stay-at-home mothers tend to be younger and less educated, with lower family incomes. They are more likely than other mothers to be Hispanic or foreign-born.

Census researchers said the new report is the first of its kind and was spurred by interest in the so-called "opt-out revolution" among well-educated women said to be leaving the workforce to care for children at home.

Too bad that they didn't design the sampling frame so that they could answer that question, by the way. To find out the characteristics of SAHMs doesn't tell us the reverse: What percentage of the women with children in each social class are SAHMs. It could be that the original Census data does that answer, but they are not telling us what it might be here.

Gah. I really, really hate this topic. It's classist, essentialist and a major example of how we reverse everything about a topic so that we can bash on one group of women (usually either wealthier SAHMS or wealthier mothers in the labor force) while ignoring vast groups of women altogether. And all men, most naturally.
----
To understand my irritation a little better, read, say, the comments attached to this post. Then multiply reading comments like those by a thousand and you might get where I sit. The topic disintegrates into woman-blaming and anger and then turns into mummy wars.

|

Echidne, All Sand-Papered 



That's what happens when you read rough shit every day. You get a sore skin, even under all these snake scales. That's what happened to me concerning the Roman Polanski case and that was one reason I didn't want to write more about it. The other reason was that I already did write about it, and what I wrote was very fine, indeed. Even rather path-breaking. Honest.

But it took enormous amounts of intellectual and emotional energy out of me and so I'm exhausted and my eyes ain't shining the way snake eyes should and my goddess tiara is askew on my poor bald head. And what I wrote will have exactly zero impact on the general conversation about Roman Polanski.

That will remain the same old merry-go-round where the same arguments pass by and have zero impact on the next argument passing by:

Was the mummy the real guilty party? Was poor Polanski trapped? Think of his horrible life before: his wife murdered his parents lost in the Holocaust! The lawyers made a deal and reneged! He was right to flee! But he fled and broke the law! He admitted guilt! But was the mummy the real guilty party? Was poor Polanski trapped...

I have followed so many of those in the recent days.

But of course child rape is never acceptable. Here is the statement I have supported:

The Women's Media Center (WMC) calls on the media to focus their coverage of Roman Polanski's recent arrest where it belongs: on the crime he committed, the rape of a child. Originally indicted in 1977 on six felony counts, including rape and child molesting, Polanski and his attorneys reached a deal in which he pled guilty to having "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a 13 year old girl. He fled the country when it was reported that the judge in the case was going to give him more time than the 42 days served which had been agreed to in the plea bargain.

Because the Grand Jury minutes are unsealed and publicly available, there is ample information for anyone wishing to investigate the facts. Despite this, numerous mainstream media outlets have chosen to depict the Polanski case as somewhat unresolved, hinging on a "murky" issue of consent. These outlets represent the case as clouded by the victim's forgiveness, prosecutorial misconduct, the family's alleged opportunism, and other elements of the story which have no bearing on the key fact that the case is about the rape of a child.

Too often, the media is complicit in misrepresenting or silencing the victims of sexual assault. The Women's Media Center calls on the media to report the unfolding story of the Polanski arrest and possible extradition with clarity and specificity. The rape of a child is at the heart of the case. That is not disputed, and should not be represented as subjective.

Carol Jenkins,
President, Women's Media Center

None of this rant is to be taken as a blog policy, by the way. I'm eagerly looking forward to Suzie's writings on the topic and people are naturally free to discuss it as much as they wish.

|

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!